John McCarthy

[seanr]

The inter-relation between the sites chosen by the chiefs of the receivers and the liquor trade would provide, were they to notice it, our friends who advocate the abolition of all alcoholic beverage with yet another arrow for their quiver of invective, for the site in nearly every instance, and needless to say they are all well known to the police, is outside a public house!

To this rule there are exceptions, one of them being “Duke’s Place” on a Sunday morning. This unique market, situated in Houndsditch, in the East End of London, is a receiver’s paradise, where jewellery is bought and sold on barrows as though it were so much grocery.

The Great Pearl Robbery of 1913. A Record of Fact. By Christmas Humphreys. William Heinemann Ltd. 1929.

[seanr]

This previous claim of yours makes no sense. Why would he claim they lived there? Because it was still reported as a business address.

Did he live there in 1881, or is that entry an error, too? It was his business address.

And your evidence it was a business address is?

The 1891 census also lists for John McCarthy, 42, born in Dieppe households two domestic servants. Lisa Alder (39) and Eliza Alder (16). Why the details of the servants, too. Was it their business address, too?

Are you arguing that this was the John McCarthy, who is 52 (not 42)on the 1891 census who has a wife named Mary and a son named George? Or is this man promoting a boxing match the boxing promoter? Not quite sure what you mean here. I thought the 'other' McCarthy in the 1891 census was also 42.

Well, it seems you you may be misinformed.

50

I

John

McCarthy

H

M

52 M

General Shop Keeper

Ne

Spitalfields

Source: https://census1891.com/viewhouse.php?sid=245&did=5317

Was he described in the same reference as 'the landlord of the property who found the body and also having won a prize for raising funds for the hospital, or this another of these mix and match situations?

Yes, this is all one single source. This version is from Newcastle Evening Chronicle - Saturday 10 November 1888, page 3.

I believe it was the other McCarthy who collected rents.

Neither McCarthy did. Bowyer was sent to collect the rents. Bowyer was McCarthy's employee.

It indicates that Sportsman Jack had no involvement in Millers Court other than renting the ground floor of #27 for his grocers business. Barnett would have hired the landlord, who I think was this other McCarthy.

Without other evidence it can tell us nothing of the sort. Barnett may have let out the entire property, Barnett and McCarthy may have had a partnership or have both been members of the same business.

He wasn't there in 1881. Therefore, he arrived sometime between 1881 and 1891 and could have been there in 1888.

*Could* have been. Could. Although he could have moved there in 1889, 1890 or 1891 itself. Or he had only been staying there temporarily when the census was taken.

On the other hand, we have the boxing promoter consistently there in 1881 and 1891, and multiple sources showing the boxing promoter either living in Dorset Street, selling tickets for boxing events from 27 Dorset Street or arranging events in pubs such as the Blue Coat Boy in Dorset Street into the 1900s.

Of the two assertions, the case for the boxing promoter simply living where he says he does in 1888 (and beyond) is much stronger.

Can you admit to the possibility that there were actually two John McCarthys associated with 27 Dorset Street?

I have never argued that this is impossible.

Sportsman/fundraiser John was probably living with his family somewhere else. I haven't found him yet at another address, but I suspect because of his business dealings and ring activity, he may have been living incognito, except for his grocer's address, which was really part of his charitable activities.

And the evidence for any of this is? - oh wait, you don't have another address. So, no evidence at all then.

And I've said this before, if John could afford to live anywhere besides 27 Dorset Street with his wife and daughters, he would have and probably did. He doesn't appear to have been exceedingly rich, but he could well afford to house his wife and daughters in safer environs.

'Probably did' is a leap.

When he arranged the boxing entertainment to raise funds for the hospital, he chose a venue in Spitalfields. A local venue in Duke's Place. Perhaps many of his business contacts were in the local area and he preferred to stick around.
He was decently wealthy. His estate left in his will is large (I've estimated it to be roughly £500,000 in today's money before) but not millionaire large. If all the stories of his philanthropy are true, as well as the number of boxers he supported financially (he put up the prize money for many fights), then he must have had a business expenditure many times larger than his estate reflected.

But all I asked you originally was what you thought about the John McCarthy, aged 42, born Spitalfields, General Shop Keeper, wife Mary and son, George. Could he be the rent collector who knew Mary Kelly?

Why do you insist on portraying anyone named McCarthy as a 'rent collector'?? Bowyer was the rent collector. McCarthy was his boss, probably his employer. McCarthy employed rent collector and lodging house keepers. I see no evidence at all that the 52 year old John McCarthy was the landlord and employer at Millers Court. No, it appears highly unlikely that this other John McCarthy was the man who gave the statement to the Central News included above and appeared at the inquest into Mary Kelly's death.

[Scott Nelson]

Which McCarthy did Bowyer work for?

[The Rookie Detective]

No, only Sportsman McCarthy was the fundraiser as far as I know. Can you admit to the possibility that there were actually two John McCarthys associated with 27 Dorset Street?

Sportsman/fundraiser John was probably living with his family somewhere else. I haven't found him yet at another address, but I suspect because of his business dealings and ring activity, he may have been living incognito, except for his grocer's address, which was really part of his charitable activities. And I've said this before, if John could afford to live anywhere besides 27 Dorset Street with his wife and daughters, he would have and probably did. He doesn't appear to have been exceedingly rich, but he could well afford to house his wife and daughters in safer environs.

But all I asked you originally was what you thought about the John McCarthy, aged 42, born Spitalfields, General Shop Keeper, wife Mary and son, George. Could he be the rent collector who knew Mary Kelly?

When Bowyer was allegedly sent to collect the overdue rent and he subsequently saw the body through the window, he then ran to get McCarthy.

McCarthy ran a shop from 27 Dorset St.

His shop was open until late.

(It could be suggested that he offered other services)

That would seem to prove that McCarthy was on site at 27 Dorset Street the entire time and explain how and why Bowyer sought McCarthy and returned to Millers Court so quickly.


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

No, but Dr. Bond wrote "ears partly removed".

I don't think Barnet recognising her by her "ears and eyes" qualifies, as her hair was her most distinguishing feature, and a cockney accent will make "hair" sound like air/ear. Barnet recognised Kelly by her hair & eyes.

Ah but my reference has nothing to do with Barnet.

It concerns McCarthy, who claimed to notice that MJK's ears were cut off from his vantage point outside the window.

The left side of Mary's face was against the pillow.

How could McCarthy know that she had her ears cuts off?

This was printed on the 10th November and Mccarthy seeing the body on the bed occurred before anyone else arrived at the scene.

McCarthy arguably reveals too much in his initial statement.

I'm not sure this little detail has been questioned before, hence why it may be of significance.


RD

[Scott Nelson]

The 1881 census for 27 Dorset Street has John McCarthy, born in France with wife Elizabeth, a son named John, two daughters named Margaret and Elizabeth and a brother named Daniel. This John McCarthy is named as head of the household. This same family can be traced to the 1891 census with the addition of two more daughters Ann and Nelly, both born in Spitalfields.



previously posted by me: His brother Daniel likely informed the 1891 census enumerator that Jack, his wife and daughters lived there because he owned the grocer's business and occasionally stopped by to resupply goods.

This previous claim of yours makes no sense. Why would he claim they lived there? Because it was still reported as a business address.

Did he live there in 1881, or is that entry an error, too? It was his business address.

Then in 1882, a man promoting a boxing match (the famous Prize Fight in a Chapel) named John McCarthy of 27 Dorset Street is arrested. Are you arguing that this was the John McCarthy, who is 52 (not 42)on the 1891 census who has a wife named Mary and a son named George? Or is this man promoting a boxing match the boxing promoter? Not quite sure what you mean here. I thought the 'other' McCarthy in the 1891 census was also 42.
And if it's the boxing promoter was he then living at 27 Dorset Street or was his address misreported? No, McCarthy, the boxing promoter had his grocers address at #27 Dorset Street, not his living address.

Then in December 1885 there is a boxing event promoted by a J.McCarthy to raise funds for the Victoria Park Hospital and in January 1886 a John McCarthy of Dorset Street is wins a prize for raising funds for the Victoria Park Hospital. Is this the boxing promoter that's promoting the boxing, do you think? Yes.
Is the John McCarthy winning the prize the same man as the J.McCarthy who promoted the boxing event? Yes. Is his home address misreported? Again, it was his business address that was reported.

Then in November 1888, John McCarthy who lives at Dorset Street and is described as the landlord of the property and gives an eyewitness account of finding the body of one of the tenants. He is described as having won a prize for raising funds for the hospital.
Is this the same man who had won a prize for raising funds for the hospitals, I really do wonder? It's real puzzle. Was he described in the same reference as 'the landlord of the property who found the body and also having won a prize for raising funds for the hospital, or this another of these mix and match situations?

previously posted by me: He wouldn't have had too much time to go around collecting rent.

Probably true, yet the man who won a prize for collecting funds for the hospitals happened to be there (having sent an employee to collect the rent) on that November morning.

I believe it was the other McCarthy who collected rents.


John McCarthy, who had one a prize for raising funds for the hospitals, was described as the landlord before the inquest. So it cannot possibly have been an error as a result of the inquest.

Again, I would like to see if you can provide the single source that mentions sportsman McCarthy being both the Millers Court Landlord and the boxing promoter/fundraiser in the same instance. Usually we get one or the other, but not both together.

previously posted by me: Sportsman McCarthy didn't own Millers Court. Abraham Barnett did.

So what if Abraham Barnett owned the freehold. What does that prove? It indicates that Sportsman Jack had no involvement in Millers Court other than renting the ground floor of #27 for his grocers business. Barnett would have hired the landlord, who I think was this other McCarthy.

posted by me: I suspect a few of the newspaper(s) would have made the assumption that he was also the landlord because they had his business address from Kelly's Inquest testimony, which was given by the 'other' McCarthy (the General Shop Keeper and the actual Landlord) because he lived there.

What evidence do you have of the 'other' McCarthy living there in 1888, three years before the 1891 census. Anything at all or are you just making it up? He wasn't there in 1881. Therefore, he arrived sometime between 1881 and 1891 and could have been there in 1888.

We have multiple references to Sportsman McCarthy living in Dorset Street and consistently present at that address in 1881 and 1891. Wouldn't it make it more likely that he was there in 1888? No argument there if you're referring to a business address, not a living address.
You say he lived elsewhere, do you have any evidence for that? Where did he live then, Clapham? Any evidence for the claim he didn't live there? I know nothing about a Clapham address. As I've said, I think the brother Daniel listed John's wife and daughters as present, even though they lived elsewhere.

Can you cite any evidence at all for your claim other than the 1891 census? Are you arguing that both John McCarthys won prizes for raising funds for the hospitals?

No, only Sportsman McCarthy was the fundraiser as far as I know. Can you admit to the possibility that there were actually two John McCarthys associated with 27 Dorset Street?

Sportsman/fundraiser John was probably living with his family somewhere else. I haven't found him yet at another address, but I suspect because of his business dealings and ring activity, he may have been living incognito, except for his grocer's address, which was really part of his charitable activities. And I've said this before, if John could afford to live anywhere besides 27 Dorset Street with his wife and daughters, he would have and probably did. He doesn't appear to have been exceedingly rich, but he could well afford to house his wife and daughters in safer environs.

But all I asked you originally was what you thought about the John McCarthy, aged 42, born Spitalfields, General Shop Keeper, wife Mary and son, George. Could he be the rent collector who knew Mary Kelly?

[Wickerman]

He gave an initial statement to the press that appeared in the newspaper prior to his subsequent inquest testimony.



He clearly references her ears having been cut off.

Bearing in mind that at this point he and Bowyer were outside looking through the broken window and the locked room was not broken into until the police arrived on site.

He appears to have had a good view of the body from the window.

Even to the point whereby he can somehow see her severed ears as she lay facing him with the left side of her head obscured by the pillow.

Note that he doesn't mention her ears at the inquest.

Curious


RD

No, but Dr. Bond wrote "ears partly removed".

I don't think Barnet recognising her by her "ears and eyes" qualifies, as her hair was her most distinguishing feature, and a cockney accent will make "hair" sound like air/ear. Barnet recognised Kelly by her hair & eyes.

[seanr]

Thanks, I must have re-read this statement multiple times and missed the ‘Both ears were cut off’ every time.
I’m very interested in this statement as it was published on the 10th of November, 1888. Which tends to suggest it was given to a journalist on the 9th of November. The very day that the body was discovered.

In most published versions it’s accompanied by a the statement from the police saying he is a ‘most respectable man’.

[The Rookie Detective]

When did McCarthy say that both ears had been cut off?

He gave an initial statement to the press that appeared in the newspaper prior to his subsequent inquest testimony.



He clearly references her ears having been cut off.

Bearing in mind that at this point he and Bowyer were outside looking through the broken window and the locked room was not broken into until the police arrived on site.

He appears to have had a good view of the body from the window.

Even to the point whereby he can somehow see her severed ears as she lay facing him with the left side of her head obscured by the pillow.

Note that he doesn't mention her ears at the inquest.

Curious


RD

[seanr]

When did McCarthy say that both ears had been cut off?

[The Rookie Detective]

Just out of curiosity...


When John McCarthy stated he looked through the window and saw MJK on the bed; how could he see that her ears had been cut off, when the left side of her head was obscured by the pillow?

How could he tell her left ear was cut off if she was facing him?


RD

[seanr]

The 1881 census for 27 Dorset Street has John McCarthy, born in France with wife Elizabeth, a son named John, two daughters named Margaret and Elizabeth and a brother named Daniel. This John McCarthy is named as head of the household. This same family can be traced to the 1891 census with the addition of two more daughters Ann and Nelly, both born in Spitalfields.

His brother Daniel likely informed the 1891 census enumerator that Jack, his wife and daughters lived there because he owned the grocer's business and occasionally stopped by to resupply goods.

This previous claim of yours makes no sense. Why would he claim they lived there?

Did he live there in 1881, or is that entry an error, too?

Then in 1882, a man promoting a boxing match (the famous Prize Fight in a Chapel) named John McCarthy of 27 Dorset Street is arrested. Are you arguing that this was the John McCarthy, who is 52 (not 42)on the 1891 census who has a wife named Mary and a son named George? Or is this man promoting a boxing match the boxing promoter?
And if it's the boxing promoter was he then living at 27 Dorset Street or was his address misreported?

Then in December 1885 there is a boxing event promoted by a J.McCarthy to raise funds for the Victoria Park Hospital and in January 1886 a John McCarthy of Dorset Street is wins a prize for raising funds for the Victoria Park Hospital. Is this the boxing promoter that's promoting the boxing, do you think?
Is the John McCarthy winning the prize the same man as the J.McCarthy who promoted the boxing event? Is his home address misreported?

Then in November 1888, John McCarthy who lives at Dorset Street and is described as the landlord of the property and gives an eyewitness account of finding the body of one of the tenants. He is described as having won a prize for raising funds for the hospital.
Is this the same man who had won a prize for raising funds for the hospitals, I really do wonder? It's real puzzle.

He wouldn't have had too much time to go around collecting rent.

Probably true, yet the man who won a prize for collecting funds for the hospitals happened to be there (having sent an employee to collect the rent) on that November morning.

I suspect a few of the newspaper(s) would have made the assumption that he was also the landlord because they had his business address from Kelly's Inquest testimony.

John McCarthy, who had one a prize for raising funds for the hospitals, was described as the landlord before the inquest. So it cannot possibly have been an error as a result of the inquest.

Sportsman McCarthy didn't own Millers Court. Abraham Barnett did.

So what if Abraham Barnett owned the freehold. What does that prove?

I suspect a few of the newspaper(s) would have made the assumption that he was also the landlord because they had his business address from Kelly's Inquest testimony, which was given by the 'other' McCarthy (the General Shop Keeper and the actual Landlord) because he lived there.

What evidence do you have of the 'other' McCarthy living there in 1888, three years before the 1891 census. Anything at all or are you just making it up?

We have multiple references to Sportsman McCarthy living in Dorset Street and consistently present at that address in 1881 and 1891. Wouldn't it make it more likely that he was there in 1888?
You say he lived elsewhere, do you have any evidence for that? Where did he live then, Clapham? Any evidence for the claim he didn't live there?

Can you cite any evidence at all for your claim other than the 1891 census? Are you arguing that both John McCarthys won prizes for raising funds for the hospitals?

[Scott Nelson]

Quite a bit of mixing and matching going on. Sportsman McCarthy didn't own Millers Court. Abraham Barnett did. Sportsman Jack was the only person associated with 27 Dorsey Street known to promote boxing matches and raise funds for hospitals. He wouldn't have had too much time to go around collecting rent. I suspect a few of the newspaper(s) would have made the assumption that he was also the landlord because they had his business address from Kelly's Inquest testimony, which was given by the 'other' McCarthy (the General Shop Keeper and the actual Landlord) because he lived there. Sportsman Jack and his family did not live there. So the future father-in-law of Kay Kendall only conducted his grocer's business from the ground floor -- likely employing the other 'John' as a shop keeper.

So who do you think the other McCarthy was then? And the wife, Mary? The son, George?

[seanr]

In the Empire News & The Umpire - Sunday 11 September 1910, Boxing referree and Sporting Life reporter Robert Patrick Watson writes of his memories of the boxing at the old Arch at Shadwell.



And he names one of the officers who was in attendance.



Rolfe was the man's name. The same Rolfe who apprehended Baker and Rudge, and who investigated the 'Romford murder'.

[seanr]

In his statement to the Central News which must have been made on the 9th of November 1888, a copy of which is available in Newcastle Evening Chronicle - Saturday 10 November 1888, page 3 it is stated that he was the owner of the houses in Miller's Court and that he had sent Bowyer to collect the rents. It is this man who the police say won a prize for raising money for the hospitals. John McCarthy, the sportsman, won a prize for raising money for the hospitals.

His brother Daniel lied about John McCarthy the sportsman living at 27 Dorset Street because the sportsman occasionally popped in to resupply goods. Is this a serious suggestion? And the evidence of any of this would be?

The John McCarthy who was arrested for his part in the famous 'Prize Fight in Chapel' in 1882, was described as a General Shop Keeper of 27 Dorset Street, Spitalfields (East London Observer, 1 April 1882). Which John McCarthy was this? - perhaps the other John McCarthy also promoted illegal boxing matches and separately won a prize for raising funds for the hospitals.

Quite the coincidence two John McCarthys at the same address on the census, both of whom promoted boxing matches and both of whom won prizes for raising funds for the hospitals. Except for one of them we have the record of the boxing event the funds were raised at and the prize being awarded. And the evidence for your claims is, well, what exactly?