Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John McCarthy

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

  • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

    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...





    Another fascinating post


    a hired hand and enforcer


    it sounds like the McCarthys were the Irish East End gangsters of their own patch.


    was their tension between the Irish and Jews at the time?

    Is Meyer Irish or Jewish?


    fascinating



    TRD

    Comment


    • The land tax records for 1889 record several names as owners/occupiers in Paternoster Row.

      4/5: M. A. Harris/tenants

      6: E. Zuccani/T. Tempany

      7/8/9/10/11/12: C. Harwood/Tenants

      Tempany was Alice McKenzie’s landlord in Gun Street.
      By 1901, Billy Maher and Daniel Sullivan (Crossingham’s brother-in-law) we’re living in LPR.


      Comment


      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

        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.
        So were the Crossinghams and McCarthys working together as part of a prostitution And protection racket? Or were they rivals?

        the enforcer Billy Meyer whom Gary speaks of sounds like he was a making a point when he went into Crossinghams lodging house and stabbed a woman before pulling her out onto the street.

        either the police were scared to act, were unaware of such criminality (unlikely) or chose to turn a blind eye due to corruption. What other reason would there be for one of McCarthys henchmen’s acts going unpunished?


        corruption, bribery, extortion, prostitution, illegal boxing, it all sounds like a normal days work for Dorset St


        TRD

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post

          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


          TRD,

          I thought you’d researched McCarthy’s genealogy in sufficient depth to be 99% sure that Lechmere’s neighbour was his second cousin. You should be able to tell us if the two men are the same.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

            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.
            It would be fair to assume then that MJK was one of Jack McCarthys working girls.

            killing MJK in Millers Court is a bold statement to make.

            a common punishment for those who had crossed the line was the slicing off of noses; equivalent punishment to “knee capping” I would imagine.


            The problem is that the MO of the rippers assault on MJK goes further than just a feud or punishment etc... it’s the complete obliteration and dehumanisation of a defenceless woman in her bed.

            The ripper obviously had a hatred for prostitutes BUT by proxy that would also mean he had a hatred for the act of Prostitution itself and the men who facilitated it.
            I believe the ripper chose Millers Court to attack the powerful corrupt men who hid behind their mask while preaching being a good upstanding citizen.
            This would then explain the letters that were sent to public officials.
            the ripper hated not just prostitutes but the men in power that controlled the industry behind it.
            he sent letters to highlight the corruption and the police knew he was as much a vigilante as he was a sadist.


            TRD

            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.
              This is from McCarthy's speech defending Dorset Street in 1901;

              "There are four shops - one fish-shop and three general shops and it is a REMARKABLE COINCIDENCE that the three shops are all of THAT SAME HISTORICAL NAME, "McCarthy." ("Good luck to the lot of em!") Though THIS IS THE CASE, they belong to three separate and distinct families."

              So no, not necessarily the very same.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post

                It would be fair to assume then that MJK was one of Jack McCarthys working girls.

                killing MJK in Millers Court is a bold statement to make.

                a common punishment for those who had crossed the line was the slicing off of noses; equivalent punishment to “knee capping” I would imagine.


                The problem is that the MO of the rippers assault on MJK goes further than just a feud or punishment etc... it’s the complete obliteration and dehumanisation of a defenceless woman in her bed.

                The ripper obviously had a hatred for prostitutes BUT by proxy that would also mean he had a hatred for the act of Prostitution itself and the men who facilitated it.
                I believe the ripper chose Millers Court to attack the powerful corrupt men who hid behind their mask while preaching being a good upstanding citizen.
                This would then explain the letters that were sent to public officials.
                the ripper hated not just prostitutes but the men in power that controlled the industry behind it.
                he sent letters to highlight the corruption and the police knew he was as much a vigilante as he was a sadist.


                TRD
                Why would that be ‘fair to assume’?

                Comment


                • It would be fair to assume then that MJK was one of Jack McCarthys working girls.

                  Sorry, no disrespect meant, but this seems to be the problem with this whole line of reasoning. It is all based on assumptions with no supporting evidence. One assumption is used to bolster another assumption.

                  Somehow McCarthy has become the Don Corleone of Whitechapel and with that they are off and running.

                  c.d

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                    This is from McCarthy's speech defending Dorset Street in 1901;

                    "There are four shops - one fish-shop and three general shops and it is a REMARKABLE COINCIDENCE that the three shops are all of THAT SAME HISTORICAL NAME, "McCarthy." ("Good luck to the lot of em!") Though THIS IS THE CASE, they belong to three separate and distinct families."

                    So no, not necessarily the very same.
                    What, you think there was another shopkeeper named McCarthy on the North side of Dorset Street who owned all the property there?

                    I’ve often wondered whether the McCarthy who made that speech was McCarthy Jnr (Steve/John/Jack).

                    And with my suspicious mind, I wonder why McCarthy chose not to acknowledge the relationship by marriage of Ann McCarthy who ran the shop at no. 36, on the corner of Paternoster Row.
                    Last edited by MrBarnett; 10-24-2020, 04:08 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                      It would be fair to assume then that MJK was one of Jack McCarthys working girls.

                      Sorry, no disrespect meant, but this seems to be the problem with this whole line of reasoning. It is all based on assumptions with no supporting evidence. One assumption is used to bolster another assumption.

                      Somehow McCarthy has become the Don Corleone of Whitechapel and with that they are off and running.

                      c.d
                      Spot on c.d.

                      It’s possible that all the philanthropy was a front. But there is plenty of evidence that it existed. What evidence is there that he was a brothel keeper? Or anything else seriously untoward?






                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                        It would be fair to assume then that MJK was one of Jack McCarthys working girls.

                        Sorry, no disrespect meant, but this seems to be the problem with this whole line of reasoning. It is all based on assumptions with no supporting evidence. One assumption is used to bolster another assumption.

                        Somehow McCarthy has become the Don Corleone of Whitechapel and with that they are off and running.

                        c.d
                        That’s a very fair point indeed.

                        so from all of this entire thread the only real evidence we do have...

                        is that

                        1 - MJK’s wounds weren’t self inflicted

                        and

                        2 - JTR wasn’t a fan of prostitutes.

                        Everything outside of that is pure conjecture.


                        TRD


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                          What, you think there was another shopkeeper named McCarthy on the North side of Dorset Street who owned all the property there?

                          I’ve often wondered whether the McCarthy who made that speech was McCarthy Jnr (Steve/John/Jack).

                          And with my suspicious mind, I wonder why McCarthy chose not to acknowledge the relationship by marriage of Ann McCarthy who ran the shop at no. 36, on the corner of Paternoster Row.
                          Not quite. But with three shops it would be easy to assume they were all owned by the same McCarthy, along with any other properties. whereas Jack said that three separate families owned them.
                          Of course, if you're saying that all three were effectively owned by one man, that puts a different perspective on things.
                          Is that what you're saying?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                            Not quite. But with three shops it would be easy to assume they were all owned by the same McCarthy, along with any other properties. whereas Jack said that three separate families owned them.
                            Of course, if you're saying that all three were effectively owned by one man, that puts a different perspective on things.
                            Is that what you're saying?
                            No, I’m saying the shopkeeper on the N side of Dorset Street mentioned by Duckworth was MJK’s landlord.

                            Comment


                            • Still no evidence that Dorset St. McCarthy attended Abberline's retirement ceremony.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
                                Still no evidence that Dorset St. McCarthy attended Abberline's retirement ceremony.
                                No, that’s right. It could have been another local tradesman named McCarthy and his son. Possibly a different father and son from the J.& S. McCarthy who did a comic turn to amuse the assembled guests at Arnold’s retirement do.

                                Dorset Street John McCarthy and his comedian son, ‘Steve’, who were regular contributors to such presentations may have given that particular one a miss.

                                You never know.

                                And it’s possible that the Lambeth PS who had been briefly seconded to H Division some years previously had struck up such a rapport with his old boss that he wangled an invite for him self and his entertaining son to Abberline’s do. And perhaps he asked the local press not to refer to him by his police rank.

                                You never know.





                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X