John McCarthy

[Chava]

Hi Roy,

I don't know what kind of relationship they had. I was replying to your point about why McCarthy would ever want to kill Kelly and giving an alternative reading of the facts. She had no means of support and no ability to pay her rent, but he was letting her stay on regardless. If I was a copper, I'd like to get to the bottom of that.

The following is completely hypothetical!!!

Hypothesis 1:

- McCarthy is doing a bit of fencing out of his shop. Kelly knows and says she will tell the cops if he doesn't give her a break on the rent.

Hypothesis 2:

- McCarthy has a mistress and a couple of kids stashed away in a salubrious house in Maida Vale. Mrs McC doesn't know anything about this. Kelly says if he doesn't give her a break on the rent, she'll tell her.

Hypothesis 3:

- McCarthy has some, um, strange ways of enjoying himself. Specifically he likes diddling little kids. Kelly knows about this and tells him that if he doesn't give her a break on the rent she'll tell the cops and everyone else in the area.

What I'm saying is that McCarthy was being generous, and as per Pinkerton's newspaper clipping, that wasn't a generous family. If no other woman had been killed, and if Kelly was a one-off, I suspect we'd all be all over McCarthy on the grounds of the rent alone. And blackmail would be an obvious inference. However I'm not ruling out the possibility that he was a generous man who felt sorry for a woman who was down on her luck.

It's not that I suspect him. It's that I won't rule him out arbitrarily. If she didn't owe that back-rent, I'd probably not feel as interested in him as I am.

[White-Knight]

Hi Chava!

I wonder why Kelly didn't remove to Crossingham's Rents when she ceased to be able to afford the more salubrious confines of Millers Court.

Oh, wait a second, she didn't have to worry about paying the rent...

More likely just holding on and chancing her luck untill she got thrown out and ended up there anyway...

Nice bit of 'thinking outside the box' , as Howard might call it though!

And certainly there's room for speculation in that 'relationship' between Kelly and McCarthy....


WK.

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Chava,

You suspect she was blackmailing him. For what?

Roy

[Chava]

Few "unfortunates" could have afforded to have moved there in the first place - Crossingham, Cooney and co at least offered the more affordable 4d per night option.

Probably true. I wonder why Kelly didn't remove to Crossingham's Rents when she ceased to be able to afford the more salubrious confines of Millers Court.

Oh, wait a second, she didn't have to worry about paying the rent...

[Celesta]

By the way...Do we have a physical description of John McCarthy anywhere?

Short, stocky, Jewish appearance, with a carroty mustache perhaps?

Works for me, Pinkerton, as long as he likes take-out beer and has blotchy skin.

Nobody heard a peep out Mary after roughly 1:30 AM, based on what we think we know. Barring any random yelps of "murder".

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Pinkerton,

However my point is that I don't believe that most lodging house owners knew their tenants as well as McCarthy, since his shop was in the front of Miller's Court.

Something we'll never know for certain - and certainly not a conclusion I'd be able to reach without further research. There were many, many small lodging-houses in London at the time, some of which I daresay had more-or-less "live-in" landlords.

Most of them were likely unaware of most of the customers who came in, as this was left to the deputy.

But the deputy was acting as the "landlord's representative on earth", so to speak. I can't see why "deputiness" would be any different from "landlordliness" in terms of "the man in charge" knowing his residents. Indeed, as we see from the testimony of lodging-house deputies in previous cases, they seem to have known the victims reasonably well. McCarthy is no different in that regard.

McCarthy on the other hand seemed to know most of his tenants by name according to the news reports.

McCarthy only mentions one of tenants - Mary Jane Kelly (two, if we add Bowyer, who lived in another of his premises down the road). I'm pretty certain that he would have known well many of his tenants in Miller's Court - but, strictly speaking, we can't tell that from the newspaper reports.

Besides, why should familiarity with his immediate neighbours not have served to humanise him, rather than have turned him into an exploitative despot? Indeed, he might even have been better-disposed to his Miller's Court residents generally, than those in more far-flung outposts of his (still embryonic) empire.

And despite your infirmary figures Sam I still don't think we can categorically state that there were MORE prostitutes living in a lodging house in White's Row than in Miller's Ct.

We can reach that reasonable conclusion based on the data, not just from the infirmary survey, but from the two censuses flanking 1888, if you like. Compared to the infirmary records these are but flickering snapshots in time, but they nonetheless support the conclusion based on the infirmary records that there were indeed proportionately fewer prostitutes in Miller's Court than in places like 8 White's Row.

(Incidentally, Chris Scott transcribed the 1888 records - full credit to him. I did the 1885 ones and added sex, street and illness categories for easier access to the demographic and epidemiological data.)

But again it has never been my contention that Miller's Ct. had MORE prostitutes than any other lodging house.

It ought to have proportionately less anyway, from a purely economic perspective. Few "unfortunates" could have afforded to have moved there in the first place - Crossingham, Cooney and co at least offered the more affordable 4d per night option.

In sum, against speculation based on a few newspaper reports of a handful of people over a few days, we have the infirmary records for the entire year of 1888, the census returns of 1881/1891 and a simple economic argument - all of which point to there being comparatively few prostitutes in Miller's Court.

[Pinkerton]

By the way...Do we have a physical description of John McCarthy anywhere?

Short, stocky, Jewish appearance, with a carroty mustache perhaps?

[Pinkerton]

That was ten years later. Crossingham and his wife lived just across the way from Miller's Court in 1888, if memory serves me right.

We should check the 1890 census to see if he had moved by then (out of curiosity). However my point is that I don't believe that most lodging house owners knew their tenants as well as McCarthy, since his shop was in the front of Miller's Court. Most of them were likely unaware of most of the customers who came in, as this was left to the deputy. I doubt even Crossingham was in his Dorset St. lodging house long enough to know most of the customers who came in. He definitely was not there during the night Austin checked in OR the following morning. He appeared to leave most of the day to day operations to the deputies as I believe most owners did. I've come across several articles of legal altercations involving lodging houses and I never recall the owner being on the premises (it was always the deputy). McCarthy on the other hand seemed to know most of his tenants by name according to the news reports. Many of them stopped and chatted with him in his chandry shop as they went in.

And despite your infirmary figures Sam (which are impressive by the way) I still don't think we can categorically state that there were MORE prostitutes living in a lodging house in White's Row than in Miller's Ct. There are too many variables involved. If your figures are correct, we can only say that there appear to be more women who reported to be prostitutes in the infirmary from White's Row than from Miller's Ct during the relevant time. But again it has never been my contention that Miller's Ct. had MORE prostitutes than any other lodging house.

[Sam Flynn]

According to the inquest of Mary Austin in 1898 he lived in ROMFORD.

That was ten years later. Crossingham and his wife lived just across the way from Miller's Court in 1888, if memory serves me right.

[Sam Flynn]

However I don't agree with you that the infirmary records are more accurate than the newspaper accounts OF THE ACTUAL COURT APPEARANCES of these women. If you are a prostitute and an employee of an infirmary asks your PROFESSION, you are much more likely to lie to them

That was one of my caveats, Pink - I stated why I was limiting the count to those unambiguously labelled "prostitute". I'm fully aware that there would have been "euphemised" prostitutes in the infirmary lists too, and stated as much.

Please refer to my initial post where I attached the screenshot of the table showing the prostitute numbers.

However as I said you would concede that there were at least three or four other prostitutes living at Miller's Ct. when MJK lived there, and I would concede that this number is probably not more as a percentage than other (though not all) lodging houses in the area.

Quite so - that's my assumption too, and a reasonably safe one to make, statistically speaking; especially with a statistical sample as enormous as the 3,836 items I used for that survey. It remains a fact, however, that there were proportionately more prostitutes recorded in the infirmary register who lived at (e.g.) 8 White's Row than there were in any property that McCarthy let out in 1888. It's all about ratios, rather than absolute numbers.

As there is no reason to suppose that the proportion of people who fell ill in (e.g.) 8 White's Row would have been significantly greater than those in (e.g.) Miller's Court, the simple conclusion is that, because proportionately more prostitutes attended the infirmary from 8 White's Row than Miller's Court, proportionately more prostitutes lived at 8 White's Row (one of Crossingham's, I believe) than lived at Miller's Court.

[Pinkerton]

Hello Pinkerton

Only recently discovered this but Mr Crossingham did live in Dorset St. He lived at 16 Dorset St with his wife and leased 16-20 Dorset St.

According to the inquest of Mary Austin in 1898 he lived in ROMFORD.

[Pinkerton]

They are most certainly relevant inasmuch as they constitute the nearest thing to a "census" we have to the residents of the streets of Spitalfields in 1888. I have made my rationale for using them perfectly clear, together with caveats. Bearing those caveats in mind, the infirmary records are a hugely important and powerful resource for those interested in the demographics of the East End in general, and Whitechapel/Spitalfields in particular.

Given the sheer number of records, and time-frames, involved, the infirmary lists have a significant advantage over those who would prefer to base their imaginings on a clutch of press reports relating to brief instants in time in the lives of a mere handful of people.

Sam, you have made some great counter arguments and I appreciate them (and agree to a point with many of the points you have made). And perhaps saying that the infirmary records were not relevant was a bit strong on my part. However I don't agree with you that the infirmary records are more accurate than the newspaper accounts OF THE ACTUAL COURT APPEARANCES of these women. If you are a prostitute and an employee of an infirmary asks your PROFESSION, you are much more likely to lie to them (or to the census people) then to an actual COURT OF LAW, where you can be prosecuted for perjury and intimidated by the power of the law. So if you want to see if a woman of the time was a prostitute the researcher would want to turn to court or police records over infirmary records, though infirmary records would be useful as well. Unfortunately the police records aren't available to us yet. So court records would be the next best thing. And the Old Bailey is only going to show cases where a TRIAL was held. Newspaper records will report police court records where the defendent(s) plead guilty, thus bypassing a full court trial. So here is the basic question: Is a prostitute more likely to go the infirmary and give her truthful profession, or is she more likely to be involved in a court case (not necessarily prosecuted) where she gives her truthful profession? And this is of course taking into account that the newspaperman misheard the proceedings of the trial.

However as I said you would concede that there were at least three or four other prostitutes living at Miller's Ct. when MJK lived there, and I would concede that this number is probably not more as a percentage than other (though not all) lodging houses in the area. My only point to posting those two articles of prostitutes at Miller's Ct. was to show that there were prostitutes residing there for at least several years (the fact that there were 3 or 4 there when MJK was there was not an aberration). I AM NOT trying to make the argument that there were MORE prostitutes at Miller's Ct then anywhere else THEREFORE McCarthy must have been a pimp.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

McCarthy an ordinary Spitalfields landlord?

He was the only local slum landlord I know of to be invited to Abberline's 1892 retirement dinner.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Pinkerton

Only recently discovered this but Mr Crossingham did live in Dorset St. He lived at 16 Dorset St with his wife and leased 16-20 Dorset St.

Indeed he did. Besides which (and this is more in relation to Pinkerton's original post), McCarthy was a comparative minnow in the lodging-house business, certainly compared to Crossingham and Cooney.

McCarthy was, when all's said and done, a rather ordinary Spitalfields landlord - his tenants, and the way he conducted his business with them, would not have been radically different to many others in his line of business.

[Sam Flynn]

Pinkerton, thank you for that amazing post.

It was, but I'll fully understand if you don't thank me for pointing out the other side of the coin