John McCarthy

[Pinkerton]

Hi Tom Dooley,
You seem to be misinformed, try to read posts accurately. John McCarthy's daughters did not have theatrical careers, only his son John, who married Musical Hall Star Marie Kendall in 1895, she knew Marie Lloyd,they probably met her after that date. In 1888, John was 14 and Marie Lloyd 18,
Pinkerton,
I remember reading the account of the fixed boxing match, would like to see it again. Not sure if it referred to our McCarthy. I did some research on McCarthy's and there were about forty of them in London, [ the tribes of Kelly's Donovan's and McCarthy's in London at that time would make an army] several Johns,[ A tribe of McCarthy's in Castle Ally] some of whom were involved in criminal activity. It important to make sure its him, at not another John. I don't believe he was a saint, but I don't think he was evil either.
I don't know if McCarthy was in the same lodge as Abbeline, perhaps someone has that information? Cheers Miss Marple

Miss Marple,

Here is one of the four articles I have on this event from the Daily News on March 29, 1882. The other three are almost identical except contain less details than this article. It mentions "John McCarthy", age 27, "shopkeeper", living in "Dorset Street Spitalfields". Someone on these boards also once mentioned that McCarthy had a long history with boxing matches. Not sure where they got this information.

Sorry about the layout. The article snippets go from left to right and then down.

[Chava]

Reductio ad absurdUM.

God, you're right! I picked up the first typo on that and didn't notice the second...

Thanks, Robert!

[Robert]

Reductio ad absurdUM.

[Chava]

He was concealing a crime.

With respect, if Kelly was killed by a copycat, he was also concealing a crime.

I posted a link to the 1891 Census for nearby Fournier Street (then "Church Street") on another thread. I suggest you start there, after you've eliminated the 700 plus people who lived in Dorset Street itself.

That is what we philosophy students call a 'reductio ad absurdam'. I would explain that phrase to you, but I'm not in the mood to patronise a fellow-poster. Suffice it to say, that McCarthy was witnessed on site at around the time of the murder. He may well have had a spare key to the room. And McCarthy had some form of relationship--maybe only landlord and tenant--maybe not--with the victim. Anyone in that position should be looked at carefully.

[Sam Flynn]

This case is 120 years old. We can't eliminate anyone who doesn't have a cast-iron alibi in the files.

I posted a link to the 1891 Census for nearby Fournier Street (then "Church Street") on another thread. I suggest you start there, after you've eliminated the 700 plus people who lived in Dorset Street itself.

[jmenges]

Dr Crippen didn't just cut his wife into bits and bury her under the concrete, he deboned her first. For reasons which were never made entirely clear but were certainly over and above simply hiding the body.

In all probability this was done with the hopes of forever concealing her identity, her sex, and even her human-beingness. I believe he failed to contemplate that the remains would be discovered in that place as soon as they were. He was concealing a crime.

JM

[Chava]

But she wasn't "killed" - she was torn apart and all her internal organs barring her lungs and brain were cut out. Whether McCarthy's supposed "trigger" was that he was angry over the rent arrears, that he had had a "fling" with Kelly, or that he just didn't appreciate her nocturnal warbling, what he putatively did to her because of it seems extreme to say the least. He must have been one sick bastard to have been able to do that, whatever motive one wishes to ascribe to him for doing so.

So what's your point?

Would you like me to innumerate all the other 'sick bastards' who mutilated their victims after death? Dr Crippen didn't just cut his wife into bits and bury her under the concrete, he deboned her first. For reasons which were never made entirely clear but were certainly over and above simply hiding the body. He only killed one person, but he sure enjoyed himself with her body. There are plenty of other examples of domestic abuse that end with horrendous violence to the dead body, and much of that violence is done with intent to conceal what has really happened. Buck Ruxton, for example. cut his dead wife into bits and left her in several suitcases in various railway stations. If someone hated Kelly enough to want to kill her and make it look like she was killed by the Ripper, I could see that mutilation segment of that operation getting out of hand.

Once you are into a mindset of 'John McCarthy was to all intents and purposes normal and could not have submitted the body of Mary Jane Kelly to this kind of violence' you are, I believe, in very dangerous territory. You have assumed something you have no basis to assume. We can all get very purple about what was done to Mary Jane, but we have to remember one very important thing. What was done to that woman was done after she had already died, and she died with a fair amount of despatch. The history of crime is full of 'sick bastards' who torture and then kill their victims. Mary Jane wasn't killed by one of these. It doesn't make her killer any saner, but it does allow us to step back and look at the mutilations without getting into the terrible territory of the victim's pain.

In the case of Kelly, the mutilations are vast, but much more widespread than the others. This may simply be an outcrop of the fact that the killer had privacy and time. But, again, it's dangerous to take that for granted. It's this 'So-And-So couldn't have done it' mindset that sets my teeth so completely on edge. This case is 120 years old. We can't eliminate anyone who doesn't have a cast-iron alibi in the files.

[Sam Flynn]

Off-topic, but just to clarify...

There was Pearly Poll

Pearly Poll (Mary Ann Connelly/Connolly) was definitely a woman, Celesta. Although she had a gruff voice and was apparently quite masculine in appearance, her huskiness seems to be owing to the fact that she'd suffered more than one respiratory infection that year (as the Whitechapel Infirmary records testify). You must be thinking of the man known as "Mary", the only apparent transvestite prostitute I can think of as having been mentioned in accounts of the Ripper case.

[Celesta]

Hm. Barnett, Fleming, Hutchinson, McCarthy....was there any man in the east end who wasn't in love with/jilted by MJK? Surely there must have been a gay transvestite socialist bloke somewhere?

There was Pearly Poll, of whom I've heard interesting tales. Somehow I don't think she was a socialist though.

[Robert]

Hm. Barnett, Fleming, Hutchinson, McCarthy....was there any man in the east end who wasn't in love with/jilted by MJK? Surely there must have been a gay transvestite socialist bloke somewhere?

[Celesta]

Would an ordinary murderer go to this amount of trouble?

While the arguments for and against Mary being a Ripper victim both contain possibilities, this seems to come back to the old argument of how the Ripper's so-called MO might have changed if he was safely inside a building and had plenty of time. This is something we simply don't know.

Even if this was a murder, intended to look like JtR's work, this slaughter was way over the top. Way overdone. Would an ordinary murderer go to this trouble? No, I think he would do the minimum to make it look like Jack, more on the order of what William Bury did to his wife, then get out of there.

Either it was Jack or someone as crazy or crazier. If it was the latter then you've got two Jacks at work.

[Sam Flynn]

It is not a question of 'inventing devices to absent McCarthy from his shop' ... There is much to suggest that Mary Jane Kelly was not.

Whether either is true true or not, Chava, they are necessary conditions in making McCarthy a suspect - and that's before we even begin to talk about his motivation for doing her in.

If she was not, then it's possible she was killed for other reasons.

But she wasn't "killed" - she was torn apart and all her internal organs barring her lungs and brain were cut out. Whether McCarthy's supposed "trigger" was that he was angry over the rent arrears, that he had had a "fling" with Kelly, or that he just didn't appreciate her nocturnal warbling, what he putatively did to her because of it seems extreme to say the least. He must have been one sick bastard to have been able to do that, whatever motive one wishes to ascribe to him for doing so.

[Robert]

McCarthy would have looked a right twit if those dogs had got going.

[Chava]

I'm afraid I disagree with both of you. It is not a question of 'inventing devices to absent McCarthy from his shop' nor is it a question of picking a name out of a hat and making it fit. There is much to suggest Mary Jane Kelly was killed by the Ripper. There is much to suggest that Mary Jane Kelly was not. I know two extremely senior and well-known Ripperologists --and I don't mean people like myself, but people who have complete access to all the extant information--who believe that Kelly was not a Ripper victim. If she was not, then it's possible she was killed for other reasons.

If you choose to look at the mutilation patterns and decide from there that she is a victim, I wouldn't blame you, Gareth. I've already told you that your opinions are as valid as mine. But they are no more valid than mine.

I continue to be ambivalent as to whether Kelly was a Ripper kill. If she was not, I think that McCarthy should be considered as a possibility. The issue of the back-rent can be explained away, but it could also point to some relationship--and I have no idea exactly what kind of relationship--over and above the normal landlord/tenant agreement.

[miss marple]

motive

As profilers say, no normal person wakes up one morning and decides to be a serial killer. Serial killers have severe personality disorders, or they are psycopaths and usually have had troubled childhoods, and a history of violence or sadism.
So for McCarthy to murder these women, he would have to be either a motiveless psyco who enjoyed cutting up women. Not probable,
Or a master criminal like the Krays with an empire, brothals, bullies, strings of girls, a history of violence and intimidation, who meeted out terrible revenge on those who crossed him. No evidence for that either
The problem with McCarthy is that he has no reason or motive for killing these women or opportunity. He had a Chandlers shop, and rented out a few slums and lodgings. Ok so he is a bit of a crook and engaged in some dodgy deals, as did a lot of smart east enders who made money, but it was no exactly a criminal empire.But from what we know of his life, he was a pretty fair bloke with a good family life, not a weirdo.People seemed to trust him.
To go back to rent arrears[ ok I know its the wrong thread, Gareth] but what he said reflects his charactor, The rent was ''supposed to be 4/6 and the rent was to b paid weekly,you get the arrears as best you can.''
So I do believe, the tenants paid some rent every week, even Mary, but not all the rent, she got badly behind, but McCarthy expects that, he is not coming on heavy, as long as the tenants pay something. Paying a bit on account was how business was done. Whatever he was getting from the tenants was all profit.
I think he was doing quite nicely, without resorting to killing his tenants.
Miss Marple