John McCarthy

[miss marple]

Thanks for posting that, Pinkerton, very interesting.Sounds like quite a thrilling event, no Queensbury rules. McCarthy's age is out by seven years, he was 34. Did the boxing match take place in Holborn? Or is there another Tavistock place in Spitalfields? Tavistock place is in Bloomsbury. There is a famous St Andrew's church in Holborn.
Miss Marple

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Pinkerton,

Good post, but I'll pick you up on one point if I may...

7--Miller's court had at least four or five prostitutes living there at one time or another.

Three or four, of whom we know - Prater, Cox and Kelly; to whom perhaps Maria Harvey might be added. Even if there were more, remember that there were around about 20 rooms in the Court, which might have held around 40 people at any one time - not that Miller's Court was invariably 100% occupied, of course.

All that aside, when one considers the concentration of "unfortunates" elsewhere in Spitalfields, does (say) 1 in 5 inhabitants of Miller's Court answering the same description really have to imply that McCarthy was a "bully" in the (interpreted) Harding sense? I mean, McCarthy may well have had a similar number of dockers on his books, but that wouldn't make him a shipping magnate.

[Chava]

Hello Chava,Keeping the few people we've heard of on the list of suspects, when there were tens of thousands of potential murderers within easy walking distance, is enough of a 'reductio' in itself, but to insist that McCarthy may only be removed from that list if, 121 years later, we can establish a cast iron alibi for him sounds like a case of 'urinare in vento' to me. What makes it worse is that we apparently don't even need to establish a cast iron motive for his being the murderer - double whammy! Much as I wouldn't wish to sympathise with an alleged tough-guy and rachmanite, it doesn't seem that he's getting a particularly fair deal here.

First of all, thank you Pinkerton! That is exactly why we cannot delete McCarthy from our list of possible Kelly murders.

Secondly, Gareth, it is not my business to assign a possible motive for John McCarthy. It is my business to bring him forward as someone who might be a person of interest in the case. At no time have I ever said 'McCarthy is the murderer'. In fact I've taken pains to point out that we will never know who the murderer was. I'm also on record as suggesting that my favourite candidate for the Ripper is Unknown East End Working Man although I do have a soft spot for McCarthy and the Kelly killing.

Before you once more tell me that we don't have an established motive and how McCarthy is not getting a fair deal, I would point out this:

- We don't know who Kelly's killer was.

- We don't know for absolute certain that she was a Ripper victim. Chances are she was. But without modern forensic methods and/or a time machine, there will always be, in my mind and in some other people's mind, an asterisk by her name.

- We do know that McCarthy was in the vicinity on the night she died at (roughly) the time she died.

- We do know that McCarthy had forgiven Kelly a fair amount of rent, and had made no noises about evicting her even though he could have no expectation that she would ever pay any rent.

As for getting a 'fair deal' (and I am going to take this completely out of the realm of the Ripper killings): when a woman is murdered, suspicion inevitably falls on her husband or boyfriend. Who might be shocked and devastated and entirely innocent of the crime. However the fact remains that a huge majority of people are killed by their closest associates. So the police play the odds and interrogate the husband/boyfriend first. And they do this even if the poor guy is crying his broken heart out. Is that poor innocent man getting a 'fair deal'? You might think not. Are the police doing their job? You betcha. And that's what they should be doing.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Chava,

Secondly, Gareth, it is not my business to assign a possible motive for John McCarthy.

Yet you insist that we must find a cast iron alibi for him before we move him off the suspect list. How does that work?

It is my business to bring him forward as someone who might be a person of interest in the case.

To me, he already is, without casting further aspersions on his somewhat colourful character.

At no time have I ever said 'McCarthy is the murderer'... although I do have a soft spot for McCarthy and the Kelly killing.

I can't understand why, apart from his merely being there at the time, like hundreds or thousands of other men who conformed to your (and my) favoured "Unknown East End Working Man" template - the vast majority of whom didn't have a family to support and a shop to run.

We do know that McCarthy had forgiven Kelly a fair amount of rent, and had made no noises about evicting her even though he could have no expectation that she would ever pay any rent.

We simply don't know that she was unique in that regard, nor by any means the worst offender. Even if she were, I fail to see how that would have given him the notion to tear her into so many pieces that the Ripper himself was made to look like a mere mugger in comparison.

As for getting a 'fair deal' (and I am going to take this completely out of the realm of the Ripper killings): when a woman is murdered, suspicion inevitably falls on her husband or boyfriend. Who might be shocked and devastated and entirely innocent of the crime. However the fact remains that a huge majority of people are killed by their closest associates. So the police play the odds and interrogate the husband/boyfriend first. And they do this even if the poor guy is crying his broken heart out. Is that poor innocent man getting a 'fair deal'? You might think not. Are the police doing their job? You betcha. And that's what they should be doing.

Because they have the remit to do so. We, on the other hand, aren't embroiled in the thick(e) of the investigation, but are looking back on it from a much wider perspective - which is good - but unfortunately with much less knowledge about the persons concerned. The police might have left Mary Kelly's killer slip through the net, but they knew more about Jack McCarthy than we can ever hope to know.

[Chava]

The police might have left Mary Kelly's killer slip through the net, but they knew more about Jack McCarthy than we can ever hope to know.

You're right. But they also knew a lot more about Peter Sutcliffe. And they let him slip through the net pretty well. If an experienced copper hadn't taken an opportunity to show a rookie how to run a license plate through the system, Sutcliffe could be out there killing yet.

My point is simple. We can't rule him out. Even though he has a home and a family. Even though I am as certain as I can be that the Ripper was impotent. We. Can't. Rule. Him. Out.

I suggested we both walk away from this on the 8th January--twice in fact. But you refused point blank, and you continue to yammer at me. So as often as you tell me the man had no motive and the killer could have just as well been one of the thousands of other men in the area and blah blah blah, I will continue to point out to you that McCarthy was there. He knew the deceased. He may have had a key to her door. He allowed her to run up a suspiciously high rent bill. You can't convince me he's innocent. I can't convince you he might be guilty. And we say the same things over and over in tiresome iteration.

And that, Gareth, is a circular argument.

So can we just let this go now?

[Celesta]

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.

I know she was , Sam, but thank you.

I had heard of "Mary" but he/she didn't come to mind and probably should have.

[Sam Flynn]

And that, Gareth, is a circular argument.

I really don't know what to say.

[Sam Flynn]

I had heard of "Mary" but he/she didn't come to mind and probably should have.

Indeed, Cel. In fact, I suggest we add "Mary" to the suspect list forthwith. I certainly can't rule him out.

[miss marple]

dorset st

I have just been looking at Dorset St Census IN 1881.
The lodging houses of 28/29 occupied by twenty people, mostly men, mostly Irish, small tradesman, 31 Dorset St, had a population of 80, again mostly men mostly Irish, couple of old women 80,60 odd, couple of married couples. No one in all that number who could be described as a prostitute. Miller's Ct up to number 6 ,families, tradespeople. Lots of Jewish families in other houses on street, tailors etc McCARTHY and family in 27
I think its just coincidence that a couple of part time prostitutes, lived there in 88, with such a massive transient population, it would be odd if there were not.But there is nothing to suggest that McCarthy purposely let out to whores, or had an arrangement. The opposite in fact.
Miss Marple

[perrymason]

Hello all,

I would think that to assess any known individual with a traceable history, like Mr McCarthy, he would have had to exhibit some symptoms of mental illness to be considered at all,...since the murders are not for copulation, robbery or any motive that he might have had aside from madness....is there such evidence in whats been uncovered about him thus far?

I know a few of you are researching this fellow, Im just inquiring whether those searches are to satisfy hunches or the extension of some known mental illness on record. Like, had he ever beaten a female tenant....was he ever arrested for violence or lewd behaviour, did he kill cats as a kid...something along those lines.

Because this man becomes wealthy as a slumlandlord/owner of multiple dwellings...which to me, although somewhat distasteful morally, is a "sound" businessman.

Surely if McCarthy had anything to do with any C5 murder it would be only due to some madness, wouldnt it?

Best regards.

[Pinkerton]

Hi Pinkerton,

Good post, but I'll pick you up on one point if I may...
Three or four, of whom we know - Prater, Cox and Kelly; to whom perhaps Maria Harvey might be added. Even if there were more, remember that there were around about 20 rooms in the Court, which might have held around 40 people at any one time - not that Miller's Court was invariably 100% occupied, of course.

All that aside, when one considers the concentration of "unfortunates" elsewhere in Spitalfields, does (say) 1 in 5 inhabitants of Miller's Court answering the same description really have to imply that McCarthy was a "bully" in the (interpreted) Harding sense? I mean, McCarthy may well have had a similar number of dockers on his books, but that wouldn't make him a shipping magnate.

Here are two more for you Sam. And I'm sure we're barely scraping the surface. I'm sure I can find more just through newspaper articles.

Both articles are from Reynolds Newspaper. The first is dated July 31, 1881 and the second June 1, 1884.

[Pinkerton]

I have just been looking at Dorset St Census IN 1881.
The lodging houses of 28/29 occupied by twenty people, mostly men, mostly Irish, small tradesman, 31 Dorset St, had a population of 80, again mostly men mostly Irish, couple of old women 80,60 odd, couple of married couples. No one in all that number who could be described as a prostitute. Miller's Ct up to number 6 ,families, tradespeople. Lots of Jewish families in other houses on street, tailors etc McCARTHY and family in 27
I think its just coincidence that a couple of part time prostitutes, lived there in 88, with such a massive transient population, it would be odd if there were not.But there is nothing to suggest that McCarthy purposely let out to whores, or had an arrangement. The opposite in fact.
Miss Marple

Miss Marple,

To be honest I'm not sure that McCarthy WAS a pimp. I just don't think it can be ruled out, especially with the accusation made by Harding and possibly by Boothe.

I am just going by Miller's Ct. not his other properties. What years did McCarthy take over each of his properties? I think someone posted this information somewhere (this is why we need the WIKI!). Also the 1891 census might be better to draw from since he would have owned all of these properties awhile by this time.

If McCarthy were a pimp I wouldn't expect the place to be made up of 90% or even 50% prostitutes. If it were it would get closed down in a second as a brothel. I would expect it to be similar to the lodging houses on Flower and Dean St or White's Row which were known to be frequented by prostitutes. And my point is not that because Miller's Ct. had prostitutes living there that that make McCarthy a pimp. It means that McCarthy owns at least one property that has prostitutes in residence and that McCarthy is obviously aware of this. By itself it means nothing. It is only in conjunction with other facts that it brings up the possibility that McCarthy has some "arrangement" with the women there.

By the way, debate aside...If I were MRS. McCarthy--a married woman of the Victorian age with children--there is NO WAY I would allow my husband to rent out lodgings to prostitutes. You think she looks the other way in the name of business? I've always wondered about this. Especially since the family lives near by.

As to the question of whether the McCarthy being referred to in the article was OUR McCarthy I don't think you should get too hung up by the age mentioned. In my research the ages rarely jive among census records and newspaper articles. I can't tell you the frustration this has caused! Anyway, the age is within ten years, and the description matches. I think it very unlikely to be another McCarthy.

[Supe]

Pinkerton,

Could possibly know more victims due to the fact that other victims MAY have once rented from him [emphases added]

Any sentence with as many conditionals (one falsely bolstered by linking it with the word "fact") as that above really isn't worth finishing. Give me three conditionals and I could have Queen Victoria and Lord Salisbury indicted as a Burke and Hare Ripper team. My own guess is that John McCarthy was to interested in making money to bother risking his livelihood tbyleaving himself open to any "immoral earnings" charges and much too busy to spend an hour flaying one of his tenants.

As Sam said, the few snapshots in time we have of the Miller's Court tenants do not suggest an inordinate number of prostituters in residence, especially considering the era and area. Moreover, 1881 and 1884 are not 1888.

Frankly, what would be a surprise is to learn that none of the residents were prostitutes.

Don.

[Sam Flynn]

Here are two more for you Sam.

Thanks - but why just for me? Such knowledge benefits us all, provided we frame it within the proper context.

We all know that there would have been prostitutes living there - before and during McCarthy's tenure - and it would be jolly difficult to find entries in the press for those doubtless many hundreds of Miller's Court residents who, over the decades, never prostituted themselves nor once appeared before the beak. The same applies to the many thousands of residents (in non-McCarthy "holdings") in Dorset Street and elsewhere, prostitutes, labourers alike, who weren't beholden to their landlord in the same sense as prostitutes sometimes are to their pimps, or labourers to their gaffers.

[Sam Flynn]

It means that McCarthy owns at least one property that has prostitutes in residence and that McCarthy is obviously aware of this. By itself it means nothing.

... but seen against the possibility that there would may been very few slum landlords in Spitalfields who didn't have casual prostitutes on their premises...?