John McCarthy

[Sam Flynn]

With all due respect Sam infirmary records are not relevant to this topic, even for purposes of illustration.

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.

[Chava]

Pinkerton, thank you for that amazing post.

And I see that at least one woman was evicted from Millers Court for non-payment of rent. By the wife. So why didn't she take the same firm line with Kelly?

[Jon Guy]

. If Mr. Crossingham is respesentative of other lodging house owners of the area (and I suspect he was), then most such owners did NOT live or work anywhere near the site of their lodging house.

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.

[Pinkerton]

Good question, Chava. They were separate instances involving different women, with three exceptions. A "Kate Lyons", who lived at 16 Thrawl Street; and Louisa Graham & Louisa Smith - who appear twice each, but who lived at different addresses during the period surveyed.

It'd be fair, therefore, to take one off 16 Thrawl Street - which brings its score to 4 instead of 5 - but the entries for the two Louisas refer to separate premises, and should not affect the count. It's the addresses who harboured prostitutes which are relevant to this exercise, after all, not the women per se.It is, when considering the assertion that McCarthy was "prostitute friendly", though. It seems he was no worse - in fact, a degree "better" - than a number of other landlords in the district. Not that I'm saying McCarthy was keeping to some strict sort of quota, only that he doesn't seem to have made a point of "stocking up" on prostitutes, which ought to have something to say about the suggestion that he was in the habit of deliberately pimping his tenants.

To double-check, I looked in the same sample for residents of 15 and 16 Great Pearl Street, which I believe were two other premises on McCarthy's books. Whilst there were a number of infirmary patients there (15 entries in total - quite high), none of the Great Pearl Street tenants were explicitly listed as "prostitutes". One Agnes Hughes of 15 Great Pearl Street - a 28 year-old single woman whose occupation is given as "Nil" - was admitted with a venereal disease (chancre) and may well have been an "unfortunate". None of the other 15-16 Great Pearl Street residents were admitted with VD.

With all due respect Sam infirmary records are not relevant to this topic, even for purposes of illustration. Most prostitutes in the infirmary (or in the census for that matter) aren't going to admit to being prostitutes. And we have no way of gauging what percentage of them might be "lying" so as to extrapolate to another given population (like a lodging house). I would be more apt to trust court records or newspaper accounts of such records since they would be less willing to conceal the truth from a policeman or court of law. However as I said, whether there were 10% or 50%, this was never my point. It was simply that over time there have been at least a sizable number of prostitutes living there. And I concede that there were probably an equal number living at a place like Crossingham's or a place like Cooney's on Flower and Dean.

Everyone who is interested in this thread should read the dissertation on the murder of Mary Austin. There a few interesting things this article brings up. Mary Austin once resided at Miller's Court and was evicted by John McCarthy's wife. She subsequently moved to Crossingham's nearby. She was found murdered in Crossinghams and the one of the deputies at the place accused Austin's estranged husband of the murder.He was not prosecuted for the murder for lack of evidence and the case went unsolved.

I hesitate to bring up the first MINOR claim in this article because it is obviously HEARSAY as far as "evidence" goes. The police files show that one witness overheard a conversation among some men in a pub where one accused John McCarthy of the murder. As I say this is clearly HEARSAY but is interesting nonetheless. The more relevant part of this dissertation discusses the fact that Crossingham's brother in law instructed the staff at the lodging house to cover-up which room Austin was in when she was murdered. We come to find out at the inquest that he tried to cover this up to prevent the authorities from realizing that Crossingham's did not ask couples who requested a room if they were married or not (as they were supposed to do). This was of course to prevent prostitutes and unmarried couples from staying there.

My point here is to point out that clearly lodging house owners either KNEW or DIDN'T CARE if they had prostitutes staying there. Therefore McCarthy would have been STUPID to admit to a newspaper that he knew MJK was a prostitute. I have several newspaper articles as well as court cases where judges RAIL against lodging houses for allowing unmarried couples and prostitutes to reside there. McCarthy obviously didn't want the law poking into the practices of his lodging house. Of course the fact that he helped raise money for charity in conjunction with the police may have put him "above board" as far as the police were concerned.

Final point. So why is McCarthy a person of interest to me and not someone like Mr. Crossingham, or other lodging house keepers in the area? For one McCarthy has a shop in front of Miller's Court where he would see most people go in and out. If Mr. Crossingham is respesentative of other lodging house owners of the area (and I suspect he was), then most such owners did NOT live or work anywhere near the site of their lodging house. And I don't know of any others lodging house owners who were accused of being pimps, or at the very least "bullies" by semi-famous people of the time. And of course a lodging house deputy (like Timothy Donovan), or owner "in resident" would be the perfect vocation that would allow them to meet the prostitutes of the area (as would policeman or coachman for that matter, i.e. a Timothy Donovan or Charles Cross).

[Sam Flynn]

The real hallmark of a McCarthy property seems to be the poor condition of the rentals.

... I think you'll find that there, too, McCarthy faced some competition from other slum owners in the district during 1888, including those in Dorset Street and Great Pearl Street who owned more slums than he did at the time. If "slummishness" were his "hallmark" later on, he was only following others' examples.

[Sam Flynn]

Simon, Great Pearl St does have the hallmark of a John McCarthy Special...

How can you justify that conclusion, Chava? Please see my response to Simon in that regard.

Wait a second, 'prostitute-friendly' does not mean 'prostitute-employing' and it doesn't mean that he specialized in renting to prostitutes either. What it means, as far as I am concerned, is that he did not refuse to rent to prostitutes, and I imagine that there were landlords in the area that did.

Rather than "imagining" it, I have shown that many didn't - and that some appear to have been more tolerant of prostitutes than McCarthy.

[Sam Flynn]

However that has never been my suggestion. I've always made a point of saying that I didn't think he pimped out the tarts he rented rooms to.

I didn't suggest that it was, Chava - but others have. I was just covering all such conjectures which the data appear not to support.

[Chava]

Not that I'm saying McCarthy was keeping to some strict sort of quota, only that he doesn't seem to have made a point of "stocking up" on prostitutes, which ought to have something to say about the suggestion that he was in the habit of deliberately pimping his tenants.

However that has never been my suggestion. I've always made a point of saying that I didn't think he pimped out the tarts he rented rooms to.

Simon, Great Pearl St does have the hallmark of a John McCarthy Special...

Wait a second, 'prostitute-friendly' does not mean 'prostitute-employing' and it doesn't mean that he specialized in renting to prostitutes either. What it means, as far as I am concerned, is that he did not refuse to rent to prostitutes, and I imagine that there were landlords in the area that did. As I said before, the fact that none of these prostitutes brought clients home to Millers Court suggests to me that this kind of behaviour may have been prohibited. And rightly so, since I think it would be possible to run him in on charges of keeping a disorderly house or houses if he allowed that to happen.

The real hallmark of a McCarthy property seems to be the poor condition of the rentals.

[Sam Flynn]

According to Charles Booth, Great Pearl Street sounds like McCarthy's sort of place

Au contraire, Simon, it "sounds like the sort of place" of the other slum landlords who rented out properties there. McCarthy had precisely two premises in Great Pearl Street in 1888 - there were many more houses in Great and Little Pearl Streets. As we've seen from the infirmary records, the fact remains that very few of those admitted from McCarthy's premises in 1888 were prostitutes, compared to the number of prostitutes who lived in properties rented out by (e.g.) the Cooneys and the Crossinghams. The implication that McCarthy "specialised" in accommodating prostitutes, or that he was particularly "prostitute friendly" compared to other landlords doesn't appear to bear much scrutiny. McCarthy's "sort of place" appears to have held a mixture of the old and the young, the married, single and widowed - and comparatively few prostitutes compared to his rivals.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

According to Charles Booth, Great Pearl Street sounds like McCarthy's sort of place—

"Great Pearl Street.

"Common lodging houses with double beds, thieves, bullies, prostitutes like Dorset Street. 3 st. [storey] houses, badly paved cobbles, not much mess in street."

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

Gareth, I'm certainly being thick here, but that list was across the better part of 3 years, wasn't it? Are they listing women or times? In other words, did someone from, say 6 Whyte's Row visit 4 times, or did 4 separate prostitutes visit 1 time each?

Good question, Chava. They were separate instances involving different women, with three exceptions. A "Kate Lyons", who lived at 16 Thrawl Street; and Louisa Graham & Louisa Smith - who appear twice each, but who lived at different addresses during the period surveyed.

It'd be fair, therefore, to take one off 16 Thrawl Street - which brings its score to 4 instead of 5 - but the entries for the two Louisas refer to separate premises, and should not affect the count. It's the addresses who harboured prostitutes which are relevant to this exercise, after all, not the women per se.

In any case, whether McCarthy had as many tarts staying in his rooms as Cressingham did really isn't relevant.

It is, when considering the assertion that McCarthy was "prostitute friendly", though. It seems he was no worse - in fact, a degree "better" - than a number of other landlords in the district. Not that I'm saying McCarthy was keeping to some strict sort of quota, only that he doesn't seem to have made a point of "stocking up" on prostitutes, which ought to have something to say about the suggestion that he was in the habit of deliberately pimping his tenants.

To double-check, I looked in the same sample for residents of 15 and 16 Great Pearl Street, which I believe were two other premises on McCarthy's books. Whilst there were a number of infirmary patients there (15 entries in total - quite high), none of the Great Pearl Street tenants were explicitly listed as "prostitutes". One Agnes Hughes of 15 Great Pearl Street - a 28 year-old single woman whose occupation is given as "Nil" - was admitted with a venereal disease (chancre) and may well have been an "unfortunate". None of the other 15-16 Great Pearl Street residents were admitted with VD.

[miss marple]

Hi Chava,
I know you were being speculative.That's why I was being speculative. I was speculating on a 'what if he was being blackmailed, by M where are the flaws? basis. Miss Marple

[Chava]

Miss Marple, I think we are talking at cross-purposes. I'm not putting the blackmail thing out as fact. But equally, I'm not putting McCarthy out as the Ripper. I can't say he wasn't, because I can't completely exonerate anyone at this distance, but he's certainly not my first choice. However if Kelly was not a victim of the Ripper, but of some kind of copycat--which I think is entirely possible--then McCarthy could well have killed her.

It's very difficult to look at these crimes individually. But let's hypothesize for a minute that there is no serial killer out there murdering prostitutes. If Mary Jane Kelly was found dead, I suspect that I would not be the only person on this board looking very hard at John McCarthy. There is a lot about him that needs explaining. However there is a serial killer out there. So Kelly has automatically been ascribed to him. I'm not convinced either way. There is a ton of evidence to suggest Kelly is a Ripper victim. But there is also a ton of other stuff that I can't explain, and we don't see those anomalies in the other crimes.

[miss marple]

Blackmail

Even as speculation,blackmailing seems a little far fetched, what would Kelly blackmail him about? That is the question
I doubt very much that being led off less than two quid rent arrears was enough of an incentive, to blackmail anybody. Any way she was not let off, she could not pay it, there is a difference, McCarthy said you get the arrears as best you can, that does not suggest she was let off. So to speculate that she thought McCarthy was the ripper, would she blackmail him? Or would she go to the police because she was terrified, instead she chose to go on living the the property of a [ speculative] dangerous psyco, who cut up women.
Then there is the other problem, out of all the tenants in his properties and his family and friends,to speculate, Mary alone is the only one to think he is a dangerous killer, how she knows that we don't know, so she blackmails him, let me off my rent arrears or I 'll tell the police. Don't think so. We know she was scared of the ripper and got joe to read the paper to her about his crimes.
Anyone in fear of blackmail would be a respectable citizen with a lot to lose, reputation etc. McCarthy was a slum landlord who had been in trouble with the police about the illegal fighting. Mary Kelly a sometime drunken whore with a bit of a temper. I am sure she picked up quite a few clients in the pub and got a few drinks thrown in a well.
I am sure if she was a in a position to blackmail anyone, it would have been for a one way ticket out of there.
Cheers Miss Marple

[Chava]

This dog won't hunt!

It won't hunt for you.

It hunts fine for me. I don't require a reason. I simply require means and opportunity to deem McCarthy a 'person of interest in the inquiry'. Motive would be nice but it's not mandatory.

I'll tell you what doesn't hunt: Mary Jane Kelly in her frillies. He doesn't hang about with the other victims, he cuts their throats, hikes up their skirts and does his thing. Not Mary Jane, though. She's allowed to get all undressed and relaxed. That, to me, screams 'someone who knew her'. Because if it was a bad trick, if it was the Ripper, who told her he was hiring her for the night, why would he keep her alive long enough to undress? As soon as she reaches down to unhook her bodice from her skirt, he could have jumped her and overpowered her and killed her shockingly easily. If he wanted her naked, he could have undressed her afterwards. But there really isn't any evidence to suggest he did. I can't see him neatly folding all her clothes nicely on the chair before ripping her apart. And that's why I sit on the was-she-or-wasn't-she-a-Ripper-victim fence. And if she wasn't, there is no reason why McCarthy couldn't have killed her.

So let's now do what I don't want to do, but feel I should do in order to give a possible scenario for her death. Has it not occurred to you that Kelly could have been blackmailing McCarthy? That she had something on him, disclosed it to him, and then suggested that it might be nice if he let her off paying the rent for a while until she got back on her feet? This is pure speculation. I can't and won't suggest it as fact. But if I were writing a thriller about something like this, I would use it to explain why, on the night she died, Mary Jane Kelly spent her time getting drunk in a pub rather than hawking her mutton down Leman St or wherever. She sure wasn't worried about eviction. You might say that's rubbish. It probably is. But it would be a damn good reason to get rid of her, and clearly not one that's occurred to you.