Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John McCarthy

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post

    Likely through racketeering, prostitution and facilitating corruption within the police.

    Quite. I take a somewhat different view of the relationship with local police than the 'one bent copper' and I wonder if local police forces formed relationships with local heavyweights with the impression control of crime was better achieved by working with the local 'powers', in this case the likes of the McCarthy's and the Gehringer's. Such a thing would not be unheard of, even if little talked about and rarely acknowledged. *The* John McCarthy turning up at and especially paying for Abberline's farewell drinks would be quite the evidence for suggesting a certain friendliness.

    I consider the possibility that Mary Kelly was more in the employ of McCarthy rather than simply being a tenant. The rent Bowyer collected and even if the debt McCarthy claimed he was owed, may have been their share of her earnings.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post

      I say this because if he was merely the humble landlord of a dwelling in which a prostitute was murdered, then it makes him relatively insignificant.


      However, if he was a well known figure within the community, who was involved with 'charity' through donating monies to hospitals made from 'boxing' (illegal fighting) and involved with Police retirement functions and such like; ergo, being a prominent figure in society with his fingers in lots of pies, then it adds to his significance when looking into the MJK murder case.
      A good post. Just one small correction, he was not the humble landlord of a dwelling in which a prostitute was murdered. He was the humble landlord of a dwelling where two prostitutes were murdered, Mary Kelly (1888) and Kitty Ronan (1909). He was also the humble landlord of the properties where two women were murdered shortly after staying with him, Elizabeth Stride (1888) who appears to have run off of her own accord just days before her death and Mary Ann Austin (1901) who may have been a prostitute and was kicked out from McCarthy's property just days before her death.

      He was also the landlord of a property where a Patrick Manning accompanied a woman he had met on the Euston Road in December 1888 perhaps to conduct some business, on this occasion Mr Manning ended up being wounded by knife at the property. The man arrested for (but later acquitted of this crime), Henry Buckley was also in the employ of this humble landlord.

      Of course, this is all coincidence and this kindly, charitable, reputable landlord is just the victim of bad luck.
      Last edited by seanr; 10-24-2020, 12:42 PM.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by seanr View Post

        Quite. I take a somewhat different view of the relationship with local police than the 'one bent copper' and I wonder if local police forces formed relationships with local heavyweights with the impression control of crime was better achieved by working with the local 'powers', in this case the likes of the McCarthy's and the Gehringer's. Such a thing would not be unheard of, even if little talked about and rarely acknowledged. *The* John McCarthy turning up at and especially paying for Abberline's farewell drinks would be quite the evidence for suggesting a certain friendliness.

        I consider the possibility that Mary Kelly was more in the employ of McCarthy rather than simply being a tenant. The rent Bowyer collected and even if the debt McCarthy claimed he was owed, may have been their share of her earnings.
        I think you're spot on and couldn't agree more.


        In context with the ripper case, it's hard to decipher whether the ripper was a regular client who was known to McCarthy; hence why they needed those 2 hours to ensure that the room was cleared of any potentially incriminating evidence and used the "waiting for dogs" story as a cover.

        Or whether the ripper was a loner who coincidentally slaughtered MJK inside the property of a man who had his fingers in all the pies so to speak.

        That's why i believe that the answer to the age old question about why MJK was the only known victim to have killed inside, was because the property itself was significant.

        Was MJK just another victim or was the choice of location AND/OR victim specific to the reason why the murder occurred inside?


        John McCarthy did indeed do a lot for the local area. He was a prominent figure of the local community and may have been considered an upstanding memebr of the community.

        But with power, comes corruption


        There is no way that a man like McCarthy didn't know about the fact that prostitutes were working from Millers Court.
        There's is also no way that McCarthy would allow women to live rent free...unless they were giving something back.

        In my humble opinion, he gave women shelter and took a cut from their takings.

        They were his assets and he made money from them.


        The McCarthy's chandler shop was just a front for the more lucrative enterprise of soliciting prostitution.

        But the reason why the police turned a blind eye is because they couldn't afford not to.

        Kelly was always considered a prize asset due to her youth, beauty and previous experience.

        It's a massive misconception to assume that only drunk working class Jewish men used prostitutes.

        The reality is that all classes of men needed their sexual urges fulfilled and someone had to facilitate that. McCarthy would have made the ideal candidate to run such an enterprise.

        There were policeman, officials and such like who would have used prostitutes. this wouldn't have occurred in the geographically upper class areas of London and so the East End was the perfect place to supply a demand to all kinds of clients.


        The most 'significant' criminals throughout society have never been the small fry working class pick pockets who fade away into history, but instead the relatively well known, popular, seemingly upstanding pillars of the community who appear to do so much work for good that people forget that people are people and everyone has darkness within them.

        Never trust a man like McCarthy who appears to give so much. They're exactly the kind of person who always expects more in return.


        I have never been one for conspiracies but it's hard to look the other way in the MJK case.


        I have always personally believed the real ripper was a loner who remained in the shadows and it's purely a coincidence that he butchered MJK in Millers Court. But when you add in some of the written letters alleged to have been from the ripper, then this again adds to the conspiracy theory. The Dear Boss Letter for example is clearly someone trying to make a social statement rather than a man who just enjoys butchering women.

        I remain to all theories of course as i believe to negate anything is to close one's mind off from potential clues and outcomes.


        The case continues


        TRD



        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by seanr View Post

          A good post. Just one small correction, he was not the humble landlord of a dwelling in which a prostitute was murdered. He was the humble landlord of a dwelling where two prostitutes were murdered, Mary Kelly (1888) and Kitty Ronan (1909). He was also the humble landlord of the properties where two women were murdered shortly after staying with him, Elizabeth Stride (1888) who appears to have run off of her own accord just days before her death and Mary Ann Austin (1901) who may have been a prostitute and was kicked out from McCarthy's property just days before her death.

          He was also the landlord of a property where a Patrick Manning accompanied a woman he had met on the Euston Road in December 1888, Mr Manning ended up being wounded by a knife by a man at the property. The man arrested for (but later acquitted of this crime), Henry Buckley was also in the employ of this humble landlord.

          Of course, this is all coincidence and this kindly, charitable, reputable landlord is just the victim of bad luck.
          quite simply one of the best posts


          i was aware of the Kitty Ronan case and of course Stride's exploits, but i was unaware of Mary Ann Austin and will looking into this immediately.


          Henry Buckley is also an interesting figure who demands more attention.


          I love reading a post that inspires me to delve deeper into further research.



          Great stuff


          TRD

          Comment


          • #95
            Have a look at reports of Arnold’s retirement in 1893. A McCarthy & son attended that too. And J. & S. McCarthy were singled out for their contribution to the ‘amusement’ of the evening. In 1893, ‘Steve’ McCarthy was being billed as a ‘new comedian’.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post

              quite simply one of the best posts


              i was aware of the Kitty Ronan case and of course Stride's exploits, but i was unaware of Mary Ann Austin and will looking into this immediately.


              Henry Buckley is also an interesting figure who demands more attention.


              I love reading a post that inspires me to delve deeper into further research.



              Great stuff


              TRD
              Then you need to look at a man named Billy Maher.

              He was the minder of John McCarthy’s sister-in-law and Bill Crossingham’s daughter, Ann. On one occasion he pulled up a man for disrespecting Ann, and when the man pulled a knife on him he shot him in the face.

              On another occasion he entered one of Crossingham’s establishments and attacked Margaret Sullivan (later Margaret Crossingham), stabbing her in the side and the face before dragging her out of the house and into the street.

              He also ‘accidentally’ knifed a promising boxer, ‘Black Jack’ Stevens, to death on a Kentish hop farm.

              Amazingly, none of these incidents led to a conviction.

              At the time of the Austin murder he was the force to be reckoned in Dorset Street.

              But I digress...






              Comment


              • #97
                A Sergeant White also did a turn at Arnold’s do.

                Comment


                • #98
                  If you are thinking along these lines, TRD. You may be interested in George H. Duckworth's notebook from his visit to the district from 17th and 18th of March, 1898 in the company of Sergeant French of H Division. It can be found here in raw form (hard to read as Duckworth has terrible handwriting): https://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks/b3...60%2C1463.1593

                  On Dorset Street on the 17th of March, Duckworth writes:

                  Dorset Street. Black on map. Still black. The worst street I have seen so far, thieves, prostitutes, bullies, all common lodging houses. Some called 'doubles' with double beds for married couples but merely another name for brothels; women, draggled torn skirts, dirty, unkempt, square jaws standing about in the street or on doorsteps. The majority of the houses are owned by Jack McCarthy, keeper of a general shop on the N side of the street.
                  On Little Paternoster Row also from the 17th of March, Duckworth writes (emphasis mine):

                  Little Pasternoster Row - Black on both sides in map on East side only. 2 - 3 storied common lodging houses, ragged women children, holey toeless boots! Windows dirty, patched with brown paper and broken. Prostitutes, thieves & ponces. Buildings owned by the notorious Jack McCarthy of Dorset Street.
                  In the General Remarks summing up the visit of the 18th of March, Duckworth writes (emphasis mine):

                  The Great Pearl Street district remains as black as was 10 years ago. As the Dorset Street district belongs to a dweller in it named McCarthy so this bit belongs to Gehringer, an inhabitant of Little Pearl Street.
                  This gives us a contemporary source describing Jack McCarthy's houses as brothels, McCarthy himself as 'notorious' and having a district that 'belongs' to him. There's also mention of bullies and ponces, a class of person which would more commonly today be described as pimps. We don't know if this is what Sergeant French told him directly or if Duckworth embellished with his own opinions of McCarthy, but I find these descriptions very striking.
                  Last edited by seanr; 10-24-2020, 02:08 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by seanr View Post
                    If you are thinking along these lines, TRD. You may be interested in George H. Duckworth's notebook from his visit to the district from 17th and 18th of March, 1898 in the company of Sergeant French of H Division. It can be found here in raw form (hard to read as Duckworth has terrible handwriting): https://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks/b3...60%2C1463.1593

                    On Dorset Street on the 17th of March, Duckworth writes:



                    On Little Paternoster Row also from the 17th of March, Duckworth writes (emphasis mine):



                    In the General Remarks summing up the visit of the 18th of March, Duckworth writes (emphasis mine):



                    This gives us a contemporary source describing Jack McCarthy's houses as brothels, McCarthy himself as 'notorious' and having a district that 'belongs' to him. There's also mention of bullies and ponces, a class of person which would more commonly today be described as pimps. We don't know if this is what Sergeant French told him directly or if Duckworth embellished with his own opinions of McCarthy, but I find these descriptions very striking.
                    I’m afraid it doesn’t.

                    McCarthy did not own the majority of the properties in Dorset Street nor, as far as I’m aware, any in Little Paternoster Row.


                    Comment


                    • Comment


                      • I’ve known LPR and Miller’s Court to be confused before. This may well be what happened when Duckworth wrote up his notes.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                          I’m afraid it doesn’t.

                          McCarthy did not own the majority of the properties in Dorset Street nor, as far as I’m aware, any in Little Paternoster Row.

                          I tend to disagree. It's obviously possible Duckworth had his facts wrong or was confused, but I have little doubt that by 'Jack McCarthy, keeper of a general shop on the N side of the street', he meant the very same John McCarthy landlord of MJK.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seanr View Post
                            If you are thinking along these lines, TRD. You may be interested in George H. Duckworth's notebook from his visit to the district from 17th and 18th of March, 1898 in the company of Sergeant French of H Division. It can be found here in raw form (hard to read as Duckworth has terrible handwriting): https://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks/b3...60%2C1463.1593

                            On Dorset Street on the 17th of March, Duckworth writes:



                            On Little Paternoster Row also from the 17th of March, Duckworth writes (emphasis mine):



                            In the General Remarks summing up the visit of the 18th of March, Duckworth writes (emphasis mine):



                            This gives us a contemporary source describing Jack McCarthy's houses as brothels, McCarthy himself as 'notorious' and having a district that 'belongs' to him. There's also mention of bullies and ponces, a class of person which would more commonly today be described as pimps. We don't know if this is what Sergeant French told him directly or if Duckworth embellished with his own opinions of McCarthy, but I find these descriptions very striking.
                            Where do we start?...

                            my goodness...




                            okay... so is there firm evidence which specifically confirms that this Jack McCarthy is the very same Jack McCarthy that Gary refers to in relation to the man who donated money to the London Hospital from money raised from boxing and entertainment events?


                            i am baffled as to how more ripperologists fail to see the implications of such a man; clearly a powerful king pin within the Dorset St area, having a prostitute slain by JTR inside one of his properties.

                            it was also the only ripper murder committed inside.

                            okay... so let’s take a beat here...


                            The ripper evolves his MO and murders MJK inside a property owned by arguably the most notorious man within the local proximity renowned for being one of the worst areas in the East End.

                            the streets were essentially run by criminals and were virtually a ‘no go’ area. And the man who in multiple accounts who runs this area is Jack McCarthy.

                            the same man who gives money to the London Hospital.

                            okay... so that brings about the question, why did the ripper choose Kelly and why Millers Court.

                            so there are countless theoretical options...Here’s a few...


                            the ripper was unaware of the fact he had inflicted his most notorious murder in the heart of McCarthy’s patch on a victim who almost certainly worked for him due to him allowing her to dwell there rent free for a while. The ripper then subsequently realises that he has made an error of judgement and now as well as the police being on his trail, he now has the East End underworld on his back too. Hence why he lays low and either ends his spree or then commits another murder after Kelly (dependent on personal opinion)

                            option 2 - the ripper was aware of McCarthy (but McCarthy oblivious as to the rippers identity) and deliberately chose to target his final victim inside Millers Court to make a statement and get back at McCarthy for some reason. This would explain why MJK was considered by some (not me personally) to be the final victim of JTR.

                            option 3 - McCarthy was aware of who the ripper was; a high ranking officer perhaps and used Kelly as bait to facilitate the needs of his client. McCarthy was aware that the ripper would come calling and allowed Kelly to stay in Millers Court in order to ensure she would be available for his client when the time came. This would then support the reason why McCarthy chose the time he did to get Bowyer to go round and collect rent.

                            all of these theories have major holes it all hold some credence.

                            the truth is in there somewhere.


                            i am edging towards the theory that the ripper was unknown to McCarthy but the ripper knew McCarthy personally. He then chose Kelly AND Millers Court, so as to kill 2 birds with one stone. The ripper knew he took a risk when he butchered MJK inside McCarthys property, but not only wanted to obliterate his prey, he also wanted to get back at McCarthy in the same breath.

                            the ripper man have even worked for McCarthy at some point.

                            The case continues


                            TRD



                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                              I’m afraid it doesn’t.

                              McCarthy did not own the majority of the properties in Dorset Street nor, as far as I’m aware, any in Little Paternoster Row.

                              If I recall correctly, he didn't even own Miller's Court in 1888, only rented it.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seanr View Post

                                I tend to disagree. It's obviously possible Duckworth had his facts wrong or was confused, but I have little doubt that by 'Jack McCarthy, keeper of a general shop on the N side of the street', he meant the very same John McCarthy landlord of MJK.
                                Of course he meant that J. McC, but Duckworth and you seem to be accusing him of everything untoward that went on in Dorset Street. Probably the most notorious ‘double’ on Dorset Street was no. 35, which was Crossingham’s. Why no mention of him? Because the murder of MJK brought McCarthy into the spotlight, made him notorious.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X