Henry/ Harry Buckley

[Abby Normal]

In Buckley we have a local man, probably working as ‘muscle’ for John McCarthy, who on one occasion we know of allegedly used a knife on an outsider who had dealings with a local prostitute.

The reality may be more complicated, but at first glance what we have here is Buckley in his role as the unofficial ‘law’ in Dorset Street protecting one of his employer’s assets (tenant? more?).

From that to being the Ripper and carving up MJK on his employer’s property is a huge jump. Violent thugs would have been a penny in the East End at the time, but stabbing a man perceived as being a threat to your employer’s interests is a world away from murdering and mutilating a series of women.

My reason for mentioning Billy Maher is that a case can be made for the attack on Mary Austin being for him ‘just another day at the office’.

Hi gary
yup-I think you've pretty much analyzed it correctly IMHO. I would add that serial killers (especially women killing post mortem typrs)tend to be cowards when it comes to confronting a man.

Very interesting find though.

[seanr]

In Buckley we have a local man, probably working as ‘muscle’ for John McCarthy, who on one occasion we know of allegedly used a knife on an outsider who had dealings with a local prostitute.

The reality may be more complicated, but at first glance what we have here is Buckley in his role as the unofficial ‘law’ in Dorset Street protecting one of his employer’s assets (tenant? more?).

From that to being the Ripper and carving up MJK on his employer’s property is a huge jump. Violent thugs would have been a penny in the East End at the time, but stabbing a man perceived as being a threat to your employer’s interests is a world away from murdering and mutilating a series of women.

My reason for mentioning Billy Maher is that a case can be made for the attack on Mary Austin being for him ‘just another day at the office’.

Yet some of these points remain distinctly troubling. As you say Buckley may have been acting as the unofficial law in Dorset Street in December 1888, yet he is completely absent from the historical record for November 1888. If McCarthy was in the habit of hiring hard men to protect his business and assets (and there's some evidence of Billy Maher being the unofficial law in Dorset Street at times, too), how did they so singularly fail to protect MJK?

Another troubling point, which I've alluded to before is the exact nature of the business taking place around Dorset Street. Traditionally, we're led to believe Polly, Annie and Liz worked as street walker raising there doss money.
Yet we may have evidence of unofficial law keepers working in the doss houses. Furthermore, we have evidence of MJK, the unnamed woman with Patrick Manning, Mary Austin and later Kitty Ronan bringing men back to the residencies to conduct their business. In addition, there is also the evidence from Booth's walk around Spitalfields in 1898/ 1899, referring directly to the 'doubles' doss houses as 'brothels'. 35 Dorset Street, which is listed as the address of Polly on her death certificate and is the last known residence of Annie, was a 'double'. It seems we know this because the man who Mary Austin was seen with returned there with her and from the inquest evidence of Crossingham, where the coroner specifically warns him to check if the couples who come to stay are married. There's even evidence Annie herself took Edward Stanley back there.
So, why do Polly and Annie end up on the streets on the night of their deaths? - if there were conducting business that evening, it may be outside the norm.

Had Polly, Annie and Liz all fallen out with the self-appointed, unofficial law of Dorset Street? Had MJK too?

[seanr]

It seems I was wrong about it being an unnamed police officer who dismissed the McCarthy lead in the Mary Austin case. It was a Sergeant Mulvany.

If Inspector Divall's chief suspect really was Billy Maher, it is inconceivable that the police were unaware of the connection between Maher and the McCarthys.

A lead back to the McCarthys would surely have been of interest, but it seems Sergeant Mulvany shut it down.

If one was looking for evidence of police corruption, it would at our distance in time be very hard to prove, but these kinds anomalies - a lead in the direction of the favoured suspect being quietly dropped - would be exactly the kind of behaviour to look for.

[MrBarnett]

It seems I was wrong about it being an unnamed police officer who dismissed the McCarthy lead in the Mary Austin case. It was a Sergeant Mulvany.

If Inspector Divall's chief suspect really was Billy Maher, it is inconceivable that the police were unaware of the connection between Maher and the McCarthys.

A lead back to the McCarthys would surely have been of interest, but it seems Sergeant Mulvany shut it down.

If one was looking for evidence of police corruption, it would at our distance in time be very hard to prove, but these kinds anomalies - a lead in the direction of the favoured suspect being quietly dropped - would be exactly the kind of behaviour to look for.

Of course, it was Superintendent Mulvany who concluded, based on the report made by Sgt Gill, that the drunken ramblings of Schultz were of no value.

There is nothing to say that Maher was Divall’s
chief suspect. Divall’s words were ‘a well-known local character’. Billy Maher was certainly that. His relationship was to Ann McCarthy, William Crossingham’s daughter. Later in 1901, John McCarthy would state that although there were three businesses in Dorset Street under the name McCarthy, the owners weren’t related. Was he trying to distance himself from Ann for some reason?

I should mention that on at least one occasion Billy Maher used the name McCarthy.

[seanr]

Of course, it was Superintendent Mulvany who concluded, based on the report made by Sgt Gill, that the drunken ramblings of Schultz were of no value.

Given the evidence from William Austin that a Mrs McCarthy had recently been Mary Ann Austin's, the lead really should have been followed. Perhaps Mulvany was not aware of details from the investigation, but that was the case, it should have been passed to the investigating team. On the face of it, it looks odd.

Later in 1901, John McCarthy would state that although there were three businesses in Dorset Street under the name McCarthy, the owners weren’t related. Was he trying to distance himself from Ann for some reason?

I had literally just noticed that McCarthy was not entirely truthful when he said the owners of the businesses in Dorset Street were unrelated. There's not much to go on as to his reasons, but he was telling fibs.

I should mention that on at least one occasion Billy Maher used the name McCarthy.

I was not aware of this. Is there a source for Billy Maher using the name McCarthy?

[MrBarnett]

Given the evidence from William Austin that a Mrs McCarthy had recently been Mary Ann Austin's, the lead really should have been followed. Perhaps Mulvany was not aware of details from the investigation, but that was the case, it should have been passed to the investigating team. On the face of it, it looks odd.



I had literally just noticed that McCarthy was not entirely truthful when he said the owners of the businesses in Dorset Street were unrelated. There's not much to go on as to his reasons, but he was telling fibs.



I was not aware of this. Is there a source for Billy Maher using the name McCarthy?

Post 4 on here, Sean. It’s a rather poor image, I’m afraid.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=24994&highlight=maher&page=16

[seanr]

Something I missed, but it does seem that somewhere in the world there is another account of the Manning/ Buckley stabbing, probably a newspaper account from the 17th of January, 1889. A post from a previous version of these forums from AP Wolf suggests the existence of it: https://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4920/18176.html

Jan. 17th 1889.
Henry Buckley, 36, labourer.
Stabbing of unusual circumstance actually in the common lodging house at 35 Dorset Street.
He followed a couple who had paid eight pence for a room for the night, entered their room and refused to leave, was ejected by the man, but upon the couple leaving an hour or so later, stabbed the man.
He sounds well dodgy.

The 17th of January date, cost of the room and Buckley entering the couple's room are all details not contained in any of the accounts I know about. Yet try as I have, I can't find the source for this version of events.

[seanr]

The James Collins case AP Wolf mentions from 1889 is intriguing, too. Details here: https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../18890626.html

The victim of that stabbing, Emma Edwards had been living with James Collins at 17 Dorset Street. Another case of a woman leaving lodgings in Dorset Street and being attacked shortly afterwards like Liz Stride and Mary Ann Austin.

17 Dorset Street is the address given by Barney Lipman in 1901, at the inquest into the death of Minnie Newman, who died of natural causes in 8 White's Row around the same time as Mary Ann Austin was murdered. Lipman was a witness as he was the general manager of 8 White's Row. The coroner Wynne E Baxter asked him if he was anything to do with 35 Dorset Street and he claimed to manage 'for the lot'. 17 Dorset Street was a Crossingham property, I believe.

[MrBarnett]

Something I missed, but it does seem that somewhere in the world there is another account of the Manning/ Buckley stabbing, probably a newspaper account from the 17th of January, 1889. A post from a previous version of these forums from AP Wolf suggests the existence of it: https://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4920/18176.html



The 17th of January date, cost of the room and Buckley entering the couple's room are all details not contained in any of the accounts I know about. Yet try as I have, I can't find the source for this version of events.

The source is probably A. P. Wolf...

[seanr]

The source is probably A. P. Wolf...

Yes, I consider that possible but the details are not so fantastic as to be worth the embellishment. And...

Henry Buckley, a shopman aged 36, was committed for trial at the Clerkenwell Assizes by a magistrate at Worship Street Police Court on 16th Jan, 1889. He had been received into custody on 26th December, 1888.

Buckley appeared at the Assizes on 23rd January, 1889 charged with maliciously wounding Patrick Manning and was found not guilty.

With a hearing having taken place on the 16th of January, 1889 the selection of the 17th of January that same year as the date of the report is pretty coincidental.

The reports previously shared in this thread and the one's I can find all date from December 1888, around the time of the arrest. I haven't seen any reports from January, 1889.

[seanr]

This version which comes from London Daily Chronicle - Thursday 17 January 1889, page 6, is quite different. Rather than meeting the woman at Euston, Manning took a cab from Euston and entered the room of a woman he already knew, taking the cabman with him. Buckley follows them into the room and is thrown out.

It is only after Manning and the cabman leave the room, Buckley confronts them again and stabs Manning in the leg. This gives time for Buckley to fetch a knife for this purpose. It's unclear how long the cabman and Manning were in the room, and why they came all the way from Euston for this visit.

I'm fairly sure this was A.P Wolf's source for the other version of events.