Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John McCarthy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

    A connection to the 19 year old Ellen McCarthy treated for syphilis would be interesting, as part of an overall picture of the casual and necessary role of prostitution at the time.
    yes, especially if this particular is the 16 year old living at 20 James St in 1881.

    My entire theory began from wondering who the family were lodging at the same dwelling as Charles Lechmere and whether the McCarthy surname had any connection to John McCarthy.

    at worst, I have it completely wrong on all fronts and I need to start again and dismiss Lechmere.

    at best, I’ve established that a former prostitute lodged at the same address as one of the top 10 suspects and that her daughter got treated for an STD (this latter finding is NOT from me, but from the amazing work of Fisherman)
    I would have also found that the McCarthy family lodging at the Lechmere dwelling were related to John McCarthy, MJK’s landlord.

    this would connect Lechmere to a prostitute and John McCarthy


    and therefore link Lechmere to both Nichols and MJK


    i have never favoured Lechmere but if my theory on his lodger Ellen McCarthy is correct and she was a former prostitute, then I believe Lechmere is more likely to be the ripper.

    the case continues


    TRD

    Comment


    • #32
      Hi TRD,

      As you say, it might come to nothing, but piecing together the threads helps create a fuller picture. Suspect theory aside, it's always a good thing to shed a bit light on the subject and build up the lives of the people living at the time.

      Like Gary said, this is very much his thing, so between you who knows what might be revealed. Probably won't solve the case, or even get closer to a solution, but we've all thought about the long departed Ellen McCarthy, a larger than life East End character, biting her neighbours nose off. Now that's history!

      Keep at it.
      Thems the Vagaries.....

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by erobitha View Post
        McCarthy was well known in the area. I'm pretty sure he had his thumbs in quite a few pies. In fact I beleive it may of been him who laid on Abberline's farewell drinks when he retired? At the very least he was present.
        Different McCarthy - a Metropolitan police officer.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

          Different McCarthy - a Metropolitan police officer.
          In the book "The Complete Jack The Ripper A-Z - The Ultimate Guide to The Ripper Mystery" by our very own Paul Begg and the sadly missed Martin Fido; it states "McCarthy and his son may well have been the "J. McCarthy and McCarthy, jun who attended Inspector Abberline's retirement dinner at The Three Nuns in June 1892".

          Did this police offer have the first initial J and was his son prsent?
          "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
          - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

          Comment


          • #35
            John McCarthy was a Police Sergeant. It definitely wasn't Kelly's Landlord or the Landlord's son.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
              John McCarthy was a Police Sergeant. It definitely wasn't Kelly's Landlord or the Landlord's son.
              The event was a presentation to Abberline by the tradesmen of the East End. The two McCarthys present - father and son - were almost certainly John McCarthy of Dorset Street and his son, ‘Steve’.

              Comment


              • #37
                If you look at this 1886 list of those who made donations towards the construction of the People’s Palace you’ll recognise some names from the list of attendees at Abberline’s Three Nun’s Event. Plus a couple who weren’t there, William Crossingham and John Cooney. This particular group of donations were co-ordinated by J. C. MacDonald, who was one of those present at the Three Nuns Event.


                Presumably T. Arnold was Supt. Thomas Arnold
                Attached Files
                Last edited by MrBarnett; 10-22-2020, 12:02 AM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
                  John McCarthy was a Police Sergeant. It definitely wasn't Kelly's Landlord or the Landlord's son.
                  There was a Constable John McCarthy.

                  Doubt he was the same person.
                  My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                    The event was a presentation to Abberline by the tradesmen of the East End. The two McCarthys present - father and son - were almost certainly John McCarthy of Dorset Street and his son, ‘Steve’.
                    No they weren't. John McCarthy was a Metropolitan Police Sergeant. Please consult Evans and Skinner's JtR Companion.

                    I already covered Abberline's Retirement at the Three Nuns Hotel in Ripperologist no. 44 (December 2002). I doubt the Landlord of Dorset Street was an attorney.
                    Last edited by Scott Nelson; 10-22-2020, 10:51 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      ...Or Esq. for that matter.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Very cryptic.

                        The event was a presentation by local tradesmen. Unless you have evidence that Sgt McCarthy and his son attended the event, the two McCarthys were most likely prominent local businessmen who were in the habit of contributing to such subscriptions.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
                          ...Or Esq. for that matter.
                          Esq was just a courtesy title that any businessman might be given.

                          W. Cressingham (Crossingham) Esq
                          John Cooney Esq
                          John McCarthy Esq

                          Who do you imagine these people were - members of the aristocracy?


                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Charlie and Harry Muddle - Esq - were local publicans and criminals.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              In the US it seems that Esq. is used for someone who is qualified to practice law. Not in the UK though, as far as I know. I used to get addressed that way on all the correspondence from my bank when I opened my first savings account. I don't recall being a barrister at the age of eight, but it did make me feel vaguely important... ....I miss those days.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                                To me, McCarthy allowing Kelly to be behind in her rent is a non-starter and most likely has a very reasonable explanation. The pool of people that would have been renting from McCarthy were poor and I would not be surprised if a good percentage of them worked irregularly. Probably spent a lot of money on drink as well. It is quite likely that McCarthy knew that Kelly was good for the money at some point and that she had a habit of paying up even if late. Contrast this with evicting her and renting from the same pool of people and possibly getting someone who got behind and skipped on their rent. Simply a case of better the devil you know.

                                I also would not be surprised if Kelly at times did "favors" for McCarthy.

                                This doesn't have to be sinister or complicated.

                                c.d.
                                Well seeing as my thread is going sideways, i thought i'd add another viewpoint into the mix...

                                In my humble opinion, there is only 1 viable reason why a rogue like John McCarthy (and he was a rogue) would have allowed a prostitute like MJK to stay at Millers Court and build up outstanding rent.

                                We can rule out Blackmail; MJK may have known a secret about McCarthy, called his bluff, threatened him and lost, by him having her murdered... UNLIKELY

                                We can rule out Sexual Favors; A man like McCarthy may have run a secret brothel from Millers Court and/or used MJK for added extras instead of taking money - UNLIKELY


                                So, what other reason would a man like McCarthy have to allow a known prostitute to stay in his property and build up owed rent...


                                Well, let's piece together a little theory....


                                John allowed MJK to stay because she was pregnant.

                                Did she manage to appeal to his better nature and convince John McCarthy to stay because she had just found out she was with child?

                                Barnett knew this...and left...because he wasn't the father.


                                The question then is...

                                Would a man like John McCarthy have the compassion to allow her to stay and owe rent because she was with child? Is that enough?

                                Well, if the father was known to John McCarthy, then maybe that would sway his decision.


                                Was John the father?

                                Or maybe one of his sons?


                                I'm not suggesting that John was the ripper; he would of had to of been the most stupid killer in history to obliterate a prostitute in his own property.

                                No, but we can't rule out that McCarthy knew who the ripper was...


                                A client

                                Someone who knew Kelly


                                Not necessarily


                                Let's tie all this into the actual murder itself...


                                The timing for John asking Thomas Bowyer to collect the rent is either purely coincidental or a potential clue to unlocking the bigger picture...


                                Did John already know she was dead?


                                I remember the first time i managed to look properly at the MJK1 photo (without feeling sick)

                                To me, the seemingly careful placement of the pillow beside her resembles a mother placing a cushion for her child to now fall out of bed.

                                The bundle of extracted organs placed on the table, looks like they are placed in a fetal position, like a baby would lie.

                                Her breast underneath the pillow, the very tool to naturally feed a baby

                                And the organ placed at her feet...like a baby has literally fallen out of her.


                                The scene; while looking chaotic is actually very methodically staged and the killer wants us to look at his work and what is represents.


                                Look at the MJK photo again and see the shape on the table and then the pillow beside MJK's right arm.


                                She was pregnant


                                The ripper's anger and fury at women who had no respect for themselves by allowing their bodies to be used, was the driving force behind his killings.


                                He treated his victims like cattle, ripe for the slaughter.

                                And the reason why he attacked his victims reproductive organs, wasn't for sexual gratification, it was to display his anger and outrage at the fact they had no respect for themselves.

                                He wasn't attracted to them, he was disgusted by them.

                                He didn't want sex with them, he wanted to control them and then obliterate them entirely.

                                They had no respect for life and therefore they had to be exposed for what they really were.


                                The reason why MJK's wounds appear to be in a completely different league in terms of severity, is because the one thing that angered the ripper more than a prostitute...was a pregnant one.

                                In his eyes, the ultimate vulgarity.


                                The question is... did the Ripper know she was with child or did he discover that when he disemboweled her?


                                Now i know there's no proof that she was pregnant.. and most will say there's no basis for that...but...

                                it does explain why John McCarthy allowed her to stay,
                                it explains the real reason why Barnett left
                                and it also explains why MJK suffered worse than any other victim.



                                Thoughts please?



                                TRD







                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X