John McCarthy

[Pinkerton]

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.

Obviously if I could PROVE that McCarthy knew more of the victims that MJK I would be much more inclined to believe that McCarthy WAS JTR (thus the conditionals). I think you guys are missing the point here. What I am saying is that McCarthy is a person of interest in the JTR case more than most because of the multiple CUMULATIVE factors I have stated. If one were to devise a point system based on various factors related to the case, McCarthy would be high on the list. So would Timothy Donovan. Police currently use such a system to look at suspects of unsolved cases. Factors such as where does the suspect live or work, does he know any of the victims, the suspect's profession,does profession give them easy access to victims, does suspect have a criminal history, what people have said who know him, etc. Points for various factors are both added or taken away based on such factors.

This doesn't mean that I believe that either of them are JTR (I don't). However they both would score high enough to be people of interest. Rumbelow's interest in Timothy Donovan was piqued by such factors about him.

And the two cases I posted are just what I happened to find in the newspaper (and I haven't done anywhere near an exhaustive search). And contrary to popular opinion not all lodging houses rented to known prostitutes--even in the area. I'll see if I can dig up the articles that deal with this issue.

[Pinkerton]

... 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...?

...seen against the fact that not all lodging houses allowed known prostitutes to live there AND the several OTHER factors I have already listed.

[Chava]

We know that there were three full or part-time prostitutes living in the court at the time. Cox and Prater both admitted to being on the game. However what I find interesting--and this is off on a tangent--is that it doesn't seem as if either of them brought punters back to their rooms. And if the location of Kelly's beat is accurate, and she walked Leman St, it doesn't seem as if she did either. Leman St is a fair way off from Dorset St.

I know a popular theory to explain the back-rent situation is to say that McCarthy wanted to have some leverage to turn Kelly out on his behalf. I have no feelings about that either way. Could be true, could be false. But McCarthy certainly was aware of the way in which Kelly purported to make her living and had no problems with it.

Pinkerton puts the case to look closely at McCarthy very succinctly. He's not saying McC is the Ripper, neither am I. Simply that we can't dismiss out-of-hand the idea that he might have been involved in some way. The police at the time may or may not have looked at him closely. Whatever else, given his situation and the little empire he had created, I'm sure he was a very generous contributor to the Policemen's Benevolent Fund! I'll bet he got the local equivalent of kid-glove treatment.

[DVV]

We know that there were three full or part-time prostitutes living in the court at the time.

Hi Chava,
No doubt, Mc Carthy was (in)derectly living on prostitution. In this way he was a pimp, and many estate agencies, today, are pimps, too.
Amitiés,
David

[Chava]

Hi David,

I looked at my previous post and realized I hadn't expressed myself clearly. I don't think that McCarthy was a pimp, but I do think that he knew he had prostitutes among his tenants. A while back on another thread I posited the idea that Kelly may have been renting her room out to Harvey etc to use for their 'short-time' dates. If this was the case, I would not be surprised if McCarthy wanted a cut of that. But this is all supposition and imagination. There is no evidence that I have heard of that McCarthy pimped his tenants. However it is also true to say that McCarthy did have a bunch of hookers in Millers Court, and continued to do so after Kelly's death. Prater stayed on for a while. Kitty Ronan, twelve or so years later, was hooking. So Millers Court was definitely prostitute-friendly under McCarthy's ownership.

The best,
Chava

[miss marple]

Mrs Mccarthy

I am sure Mrs McCarthy was well acquainted with the realities of East end life, and lacked the middle class prudery about 'fallen women' She did after all co habit with John and had two children by him before they tied the knot. She was probably very pragmatic and knew that some women were on the game, but everyone has to live. If he was a good husband and provider and not violent, and no one suggests he was violent towards his family or women in general, then she was doing alright.
A certain level of localised violence against women was unfortunately the norm in working class life, men believed they had the right to beat up there partners and unless a death or torture were involved, police did not get involved with a 'domestic'
So episodes of violence in the papers would be quite frequent.
Pinkerton, I don't doubt McCarthy's involvement with illegal fighting, in spite of the wrong age.Its a colourful activity that has an aura about it, And it make me wonder whether McCarthy was more comfortable in the macho world of sport and gambling than dealing with women. Perhaps prostitution did not attract him as an activity.
Cheers Miss Marple

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
An intresting statement made by McCarthy to the central news agency, and released by the 'Irish times, Nov 10th.
Quote..
In a interview with a representative of the central news, John McCarthy the owner of the houses in millers court, made the following statement.
The victim of this terrible murder was about 23, or 24 years of age, and lived with a coal porter named kelly, passing as his wife, they however quarrelled somtime back, and a woman named Harvey slept with her several nights, she was not with her last night.
The deseased christian name was Mary Jane, and since her murder , i have discovered she was an unfortunate, and walked the neighbourhood of Aldgate, her habits were irregular, and she would often come home late at night , the worse for drink, her mother lived in Ireland, but in what county I do not know.......
[ He then carried on with the discovery of the body etc etc..]
The account was finished with a character assessment of McCarthy stating.
Quote..
Mr McCarthy is spoken of by the police as a most respectable man, and was recently awarded a prize for collecting money for hospitals, he is naturally very distressed at this terible murder , which has occurred literally at his door'
Ok Folks
'A coal porter named Kelly...[I have mentioned this many times before] Was this a misprint, or a misunderstanding?
He was unaware that she was a unfortunate?
Her mother lived in Ireland, but he did not know the county?.
The vast majority of that statement seems fair, however , it would seem that at some time during Mary and Josephs stay , Barnett was coal portering, as the press statement clearly states that, and McCarthy would surely notice a man in that trade.
Was he unaware that she was a unfortunately, is it not oral history that he suggested to his son, [fionas grandfather] he could start with her.[Mary].
I may be wrong , but was not a post mark of the county, of Ireland visable on a envelope.
It does appear that at the time of Marys death, McCarthy was still unaware that the man Kelly was actually Barnett, although 'THe Times' same date, has him mentioning it correctly.
The whole Millers court saga is a complex puzzle..
What does one make of Mrs Hewitts statement.[25 Dorset street]
She was Known as Mary Jane Lawrence, her husband abandoned her, although he called on her sometime ago , and asked me to take in a summons for him, if one should arrive, he was a drover by trade , and she believed them to be married, she was also known as Lizzie Fisher.
[Barnett occupation was given as a Drover, or Costermonger of oranges.]
So what is the truth guys?
Regards Richard.

[Chava]

If McCarthy was unaware that Kelly was a prostitute, he must have been the most innocent slumlord ever to rent a damp, nasty little crib for 4/6 a week.
Talking of which, I did a little research.

This passage comes from 'How The Poor Live' by George Sims, published in 1883:

The square is full of refuse, heaps of dust and decaying vegetable matter lie about here and there, under the windows and in front of the doors of the squalid tumble-down houses. The windows above and below are broken and patched, the roofs of these two-storied "eligible residences" look as thought Lord Alcester had been having some preliminary practice with his guns here before he set sail for Alexandria. All these places are let out in single rooms at prices varying from 2s. 6d. to 4s. a week. We can see a good deal of the inside through the cracks and crevices and broken panes, but if we knock at the door we shall get a view of the inhabitants.

Sounds familiar!

The top rent for one of these cribs is 4/-. McCarthy is charging 4/6. So he's at the very top of the market for that miserable little room. If they had had 2 rooms, they might have expected to pay between 5/6 and 6/6. According to Sims, there was a housing shortage in London at this time. People were living in fear of eviction, especially since there was a lot of redevelopment going on, and various slums were being cleared. It does not sound like McCarthy would ever have had trouble renting a room in Millers Court, even at that high price. So I'm even more surprised he let Kelly fall so far behind.

[Sam Flynn]

...seen against the fact that not all lodging houses allowed known prostitutes to live there AND the several OTHER factors I have already listed.

...seen against the fact that I didn't say "all lodging houses" but "very few slum landlords". I choose my words carefully, because I'm keen that we keep accurate here.

Premature extrapolation can be messy

[Simon Wood]

Hi Richard,

Don't beat yourself up.

The whole Millers Court scenario was BS.

Regards,

Simon

[DVV]

Hi David,

I looked at my previous post and realized I hadn't expressed myself clearly. I don't think that McCarthy was a pimp, but I do think that he knew he had prostitutes among his tenants. A while back on another thread I posited the idea that Kelly may have been renting her room out to Harvey etc to use for their 'short-time' dates. If this was the case, I would not be surprised if McCarthy wanted a cut of that. But this is all supposition and imagination. There is no evidence that I have heard of that McCarthy pimped his tenants. However it is also true to say that McCarthy did have a bunch of hookers in Millers Court, and continued to do so after Kelly's death. Prater stayed on for a while. Kitty Ronan, twelve or so years later, was hooking. So Millers Court was definitely prostitute-friendly under McCarthy's ownership.

The best,
Chava

Hi Chava,
there is no doubt that MacCarthy knew how his lodgers were living: he was living and working there. We can therefore consider that part of his money came indirectly from prostitution. That doesn't make him a pimp properly, but...
In France, for example, if I live with a prostitute, I'm considered a pimp and can be sent to jail.

Amitiés,
David

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Looking at the 1881 and 1891 census returns for Millers Court one might be forgiven for thinking that East End slum landlord John McCarthy's occupancy rates were fairly consistent. In both years he had 43 residents.

What happened on 9th November 1888?

Out of a possible 43 residents only 3 were found by the police who, according to Sarah Lewis, [a visitor] sealed off the court and didn't let anyone out until 5.30 pm.

Where were the other 40 residents on this night of nights?

Regards,

Simon

[Chava]

Hi Chava,
there is no doubt that MacCarthy knew how his lodgers were living: he was living and working there. We can therefore consider that part of his money came indirectly from prostitution. That doesn't make him a pimp properly, but...
In France, for example, if I live with a prostitute, I'm considered a pimp and can be sent to jail.

Amitiés,
David

But the question in this case would be this: is McCarthy, who knowingly rents his rooms out to prostitutes, guilty of running a disorderly house, even though it's his tenants that are committing the crime, and are doing so without including him in on the proceeds? I don't know what the exact law was in 1888, but I think the original act was passed a hundred and fifty years or so earlier.

It looks like the tarts at Millers Court did not bring clients back to their homes. At least Mary Ann Cox didn't, and I'm pretty sure from her statements etc that Lizzie Prater didn't. I'm still not sure that Mary Jane Kelly was even working as a tart to any extent, but apparently she did walk a stroll on Leman St, which is a long way from Dorset St. So it doesn't sound as if she took punters back either. Blotchy Face may not have been a punter so much as a man who has bought a bunch of drinks and expects payment in kind so no money changed hands.

I think the general principle may have been 'I don't care how you make your money. Just don't bring your clients back to Millers Court'. That way McCarthy avoids any kind of prosecution.

[Supe]

Simon,

Where were the other 40 residents on this night of nights?

There were in their rooms. Anyone who answered--honestly or not--with "Didn't see nothing, didn't hear nothing" would not be lumbered with making a formal statement. Works the same way today.

Don.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Supe,

Julia Venturney who heard nothing that night was subpoenaed to appear at the inquest.

Regards,

Simon