John McCarthy

[Sam Flynn]

Prostitute-friendly?

However it is also true to say that McCarthy did have a bunch of hookers in Millers Court

We know of three, perhaps four - and we might speculate a handful more - out of how many residents?

Millers Court was definitely prostitute-friendly under McCarthy's ownership.

Here's a sample of the Whitechapel Infirmary records, some from 1885 and all the records from 1st Feb 1888 to 31st January 1889. The total number of records in the sample was 3,836 - of whom 81 were listed as prostitutes. I'm aware that there would have been "casual" prostitutes and "euphemised" prostitutes on the list too, but to avoid supposition I've only taken those unequivocally down as "prostitutes". The first column shows the prostitutes' addresses, the second column shows the number of prostitutes listed at each address, sorted "highest first":



I've highlighted those properties owned or leased by John McCarthy at the time with a GREEN background. Whilst this doesn't give us the definitive number, it at least gives us some idea of the relative number of prostitutes occupying McCarthy's premises, against those of other dwelling- and lodging-house keepers. It appears strongly from this that McCarthy trailed far behind some of his "rivals", such as Cooney and Crossingham, and can by no means be described as especially "prostitute friendly".


Indeed, there is only one entry for Miller's Court itself in all that time. For info, the woman who lived in Room 24 was one "Mary Ann Cluley", who was admitted to the infirmary with gonorrhea on 30th Jan 1889. She stayed 16 days and was discharged... presumably after her discharge had cleared up

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Simon,

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

It means very little. Mr and Mrs Pickett, who heard her sing, were not. Mr and Mrs Keyler, who may not have heard anything, were not called. The couple who lived in the room directly above Kelly (according to the Telegraph) and who heard nothing all night, were not called. Neither was Mrs McCarthy for that matter.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

I know I'm going to regret asking this, but who were "the couple who lived in the room directly above Kelly?"

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

I know I'm going to regret asking this, but who were "the couple who lived in the room directly above Kelly?"

Please let's not go there on this thread, Simon - I've suffered enough of a battering about this already. I will point you to the source, if you promise not to pick it up here! The information may be found in the Telegraph of 10th November 1888, if memory serves me right, but if that's wrong, drop me a PM. I won't discuss it here, and I hope you respect my reasons for not doing so - the discussion belongs more on a Prater thread, and has been done to death there and on other Kelly threads previously.

[Stephen Thomas]

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.

Quite so, Don. Who wouldn't be fast asleep at 4 in the morning?

And who there would want unnecessary contact with the boys in blue?

Apart from Hutchinson, of course .

[Celesta]

Hi Simon,

You may not have had a chance to see it yet, but over in the Demolition of Miller's Ct thread, under Mary Kelly, there's alot of discussion of who lived where in the Court. It's very involved, as you no doubt can surmise.

I can't blame anyone for not wanting to discuss it here since it was thrashed out very well there.

Best to you,

Cel

[Simon Wood]

Hi Celesta,

Yes, I've seen the thread.

Involved? You are an undoubted master of understatement.

Regards,

Simon

[Chava]

Gareth, that list of prostitutes, was it a definitive list of how many tarts lived at McCarthy's places, or was it a list of the women who asked for help at the infirmary?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I would say we all agree that the millers court affair is perplexing, so how about if we accept McCarthy at his word, and he literally did not know Mjk was an unfortunate whilst she was alive , although he realized that she was fond of a drop.
Trouble is I dont believe that was the case, he had at least one in that court ie, Elizabeth Prater, did she not class herself as a 'Unfortunate 'at the inquest.? and McCarthys morals did not evict that woman, she was there at least four years after.
I would still like an explanation for the 'Coal Porter' named Kelly, and the mysterious man called Lawrence, and Mrs Hewitts account naming the victim as Mary Jane Lawrence, was this another case,. like Maxwell of mistaken Identity?. even if this woman lived at number 25 Dorset street.
There was so much press speculation on that day and following days, that is is impossible to decifer.
We can but try however.
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

Gareth, that list of prostitutes, was it a definitive list of how many tarts lived at McCarthy's places, or was it a list of the women who asked for help at the infirmary?

The latter, Chava. As I alluded, it can only be taken as a guide and, in the absence of a full inventory/rent-book, it's really as good as it gets. It's certainly better than bare supposition.

Assuming that there wasn't any special immunity conferred on the residents of Miller's Court, it's reasonable to assume the number of "healthy" prostitutes there to be in proportion to the number of "healthy" prostitutes elsewhere (and, mutatis mutandis, the ratio of "unhealthy" prostitutes ditto).

In other words, if Mary Cluley was only one of 10 Miller's Court prostitutes to have attended the infirmary that year, it would be reasonable to multiply the other numbers by 10 to get an idea for the overall number - in which case, the adjusted estimate for MC being 10, the number for 8 Whites Row becomes 60. NOT that I'm saying that there were 10 prostitutes at Miller's Court, that is. There may have been 4, there may have been 20 - no matter; it's the relative numbers that are important when making qualitative comparisons such as these.

[Celesta]

Hello Simon,

Sometimes that's the case.

Allow me to rephrase my original remark, with a bit more passion:

It's very involved, as you no doubt can surmise.

Best,

Cel

[Chava]

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?

In any case, whether McCarthy had as many tarts staying in his rooms as Cressingham did really isn't relevant. I don't think anyone has said that McCarthy only let to prostitutes, or that prostitution was a pre-requirement to rent in Millers Court. The question is: did McCarthy knowingly rent to prostitutes? I imagine the answer is probably 'yes'. He did not refuse to rent to tarts. Given that there seems to have been a housing shortage in the '80s, he wouldn't have found it too hard to rent out rooms, although the population in that area may well have been highly transient. He may well have thought that tarts were more likely to be able to pay his rent than, say, piece-workers. He may also have preferred renting to single women and couples over families with kids.

He seems to have been a fairly focussed landlord of a certain type. If Kit Watkins is to be believed, he didn't even paint over the blood on the wall of #13. (I don't believe it! I think what she saw was mold, and what the old harridan who lived there saw was an opportunity to tell the kind of story that might lead to a hand-out.) But certainly Watkins' description of Millers Court suggests that it was a slum of the worst type, and that was only 3 years removed from the killing, so I imagine it hadn't changed much.

Slum landlords are not known to have soft sensibilities. If they did, they wouldn't be slum landlords. We're still left with no plausible explanation for that 29/- rent arrears bill and no way to pay it or to pay rent in the future.

[Roy Corduroy]

So J-Mac kills her for back rent? No. He kills her because she is hooking or singing? No. He's in a love triangle? No. He's part of a Fenian plot to gum up Lord Mayor's Day? No. I can't think of anything else.

This dog won't hunt!

Roy

[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.

[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