John McCarthy

[seanr]

Piles and piles of gems stacked like cherrystones. The visit must have been in 1861 or early 1862, and already there was such an astounding amount of precious stones in this little quiet pub. Who knows what it would have been like after the diamond trade 'boomed' in the 1870s.

[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.

This sketch of a Houndsditch Jewellery market appeared in the Illustrated Times - Saturday 25 January 1862. The London Museum has a zoomable, tiled version of this, https://www.londonmuseum.org.uk/coll...ellery-market/.

The accompanying article was later reprinted in Unsentimental Journeys; or Byways of the Modern Babylon, by James Greenwood, 1867.

Number one of the Orange Market gold and silver stores was fair enough; there were a few hundred more chains and watches and bracelets than occurred at the other side of Houndsditch, to saynothing of a sprinkling of diamonds, and a measure or so of rubies and emeralds. Number two Orange Market (a shut-up public-house, as was number one) was even more wealthy than the other; but number three!
Number three is situated to the right of the Orange Market coming from St. Mary Axe. My head is so crammed with Jewish names that I am by no means sure how the proprietor of number three was called. There, however, was his name painted over the doorway. of his tavern, and, to the best of my knowledge, it was the same as that of one of the rare old masters in the art of painting.

A Joseph Raphael ran Howard's Hotel on Duke's Place aka St James Square. This detail from John Crowther's 1884 painting of the square seems to show Howard's Hotel.

On the broad tables, on every one of them, and so that they were completely covered, were vessels of gold and of silver, cups and vases, and jugs and goblets, gold chains in great coils; while silver chains in heaps, being of small account, kept in the rear along with silver spoons and other articles in the same inferior metal; bracelets flickering with rare topazes, lockets glaring with ruddy opals, crosses and clasps and necklaces rich with great pearls, and looking chaste as snow; coronets brilliant with clustering emeralds, and earrings ablaze with diamonds. Besides these there were gems unset, piled in the corners of the trays like cherrystones, or stowed in common pillboxes. As to watches of gold and of silver, I am quite certain that had they all been placed in a sack, the strongest porter from the Orange Market outside would have been unable to carry it, even though its contents were the reward of his labour.

That's just a couple of snippets from the article in Unsentimental Journeys; or Byways of the Modern Babylon. You can read the full paragraph here
https://www.victorianlondon.org/publ...imental-22.htm or in Illustrated Times - Saturday 25 January 1862 (where available).

[seanr]

Sounds very much like an organised crime network comprising of east end gangsters and corrupt police and officials.

it seems almost obvious that there would have been an organised crime set up in the east end I even back then and makes the Krays seem tame in comparison.

We may be guilty of having thought too small. Sometimes we look at the past and are perhaps guilty of assuming a state of civilisation less developed than the world we experience today. Yet by the second half of the 19th century, the industrial revolution was in full swing and the world had got smaller. The 18th century had seen smuggling emerge as a serious criminal endeavour, although the drugs trade was very different, the international shipping/ smuggling operations which characterise so much major crime today, must also have been in full swing by the 1800s. After all, Britain was not then an island it was an empire and some parts of the empire were a bit like the wild west. Or should I say wild south.

'Notorious gangster'? I must have missed that. Evidence for all the rest is there for anyone to see - by the bucket load.

I'm guessing that at some point you convinced yourself that McCarthy was a senior figure in an imaginary Cockney Nostra and you can't admit that you were wrong without losing face. There's a lot of that goes on in Ripperology. No wonder the outside world perceives us in such a negative light.

Talk of a Cockney Nostra seems to belittle the speculation as to the nature of organised crime in the neighbourhood and the structure it would have taken. It doesn't take too much paraphrasinng of Cockney Nostra to move to Aldgate Mob.

I had thought that gambling and associated protection rackets was the big criminal business, which it certainly was big business with a lot of money to be made but it's kids stuff compared to what else might have been going on.

[The Rookie Detective]

It’s a bit weird that the second McCarthy household has all the same ages as the father, mother and son (if Stephen/ John McCarthy was present).

But it’s a leap too far for me to then conclude that Mary Kelly (who was thought to be 25 in 1888) was the mother of Stephen McCarthy.

It is worth finding the birth certificate though.

It’s not that amazing that the ages are the same that it necessarily needs explanation. The same age is even more common than the same name.

Oddly enough; I am inclined to agree with you.

That may sound counterintuitive as it means I am disagreeing with my own hypothesis.

But that's often my point

I enjoy actively looking for new ideas that I aim to disprove so that i can move on with the next random hypothesis.

Its when the evidence and proof isn't forthcoming that I start to consider that I may be on to something.

With virtually all my hypotheses; they don't come from a place of...

"hey look at what I've thought of, now prove me wrong, and if you can't then I must be right"...

instead, they come from a place of...

"I've thought of something that may explain something currently unknown, please help me to prove myself wrong, so that I can move on, and if you can't then I may be on to something"

In other words; rather than try and build a fortress to defend from others; I much prefer building a house of cards; that I need help in destroying so that i can start again with a new house.

If nobody can help me knock down my house of cards; then perhaps the house has more value to its structure than has been anticipated.


I am eager to obtain the birth certificate so that it can rule out the idea.


RD

[seanr]

It’s a bit weird that the second McCarthy household has all the same ages as the father, mother and son (if Stephen/ John McCarthy was present).

But it’s a leap too far for me to then conclude that Mary Kelly (who was thought to be 25 in 1888) was the mother of Stephen McCarthy.

It is worth finding the birth certificate though.

It’s not that amazing that the ages are the same that it necessarily needs explanation. The same age is even more common than the same name.

[The Rookie Detective]

Both the entry for the general shop keeper and for the grocer list McCarthy's age as 42. It's also worth noting that "Mary" and "Elizabeth" are both listed as 38. The later transcriptions of the general shop keeper's age are inaccurate.

I have an idea.


The ages of both John Mccarthy's is 42
The ages of both wives; Elizabeth and Mary, is 38

The age of George Mccarthy is 16 (son of John Mccarthy 1)

This is the same age as John Joseph Mccarthy (Steve) was at the time of this census.
He was the only living son of John Mccarthy 2)

John Joseph McCarthy doesn't appear at this address in 1891, despite living at this same address in 1895 when he gets married.

This census is taken just 2 and a half years after MJK was murdered.

But what's also interesting is this...

John Joseph McCarthy (Steve) was born in 1875; 2 years before John Mccarthy (2) married Elizabeth Stephens in 1877.


So he is my idea....


What if John Joseph Mccarthy's mother wasn't Elizabeth (nee Stephens)

But John had another birth mother.

What if...George Mccarthy on this census is infact John Joseph Mccarthy.

While both John Mccarthy's are the same man

But Mary Mccarthy on this census doesn't exist.

Or rather; she did exist at some point.


What if John Joseph was initially named George, and his mother was called Mary.
Just like the family on this census.

That leaves us with a potentially startling situation.

What if Mary Jane Kelly was the birth mother of George Mccarthy, but his name was changed to John Joseph Mccarthy after his step mother Elizabeth Stephens and his birth father John Mccarthy got married?

Did John Mccarthy born in Dieppe father an illegitimate child with Mary Jane Kelly?

If John Joseph Mccarthy was born in 1875, and he was the same child as George Mccarthy in this census AND MJK was the birth mother; then she may have been as young as 16 when she had the baby.

That would make MJK born in 1859 or 1860 at a push.

Meaning MJK would have been circa 28 when she was murdered and not 25.

There's also a chance that one of John's brothers was the real birth father and John Mccarthy took his nephew in as his own son.

We know that John Joseph McCarthy was living in 27 Dorset Street in 1895, so he should appear there in 1891.

We also know that the family listed 1st (John, Mary and son George) have so far not been traced.

Was this an attempt by John Mccarthy to give us a clue as to Mary Jane Kelly's antecedents?

The next step would be to find a copy of John Joseph Mccarthy's birth certificate from 1875 (possibly 1874) to see who the mother is.

If his mother is listed as Elizabeth (nee Stephens) then my idea is dead in the water.

But if it says "Mary"...then I believe this may just be Mary Jane Kelly.

Of course; if there's no birth certificate available for him, then I'd suggest he was born as George rather than John Joseph.

But not necessarily as a Mccarthy because he would most likely have been illegitimate and therefore had his birth mother's name instead.

So we would be looking for a George born in 1874/1875 to a mother named Mary.

But of course; the first point of call is to try and obtain a birth certificate for a John Joseph Mccarthy in order to negate the need to pursue this idea any further.

This is all based on the fact that John Joseph Mccarthy was born BEFORE John Mccarthy and Elizabeth Stephens got married.

Of course, there is a flip side to all this... John Joseph Mccarthy's mother may have indeed been Elizabeth (nee Stephens) but his real father may not have been John Mccarthy.
This is again based on John McCarthy and Elizabeth Stephens getting married after John Joseph was born.

This may just imply that John Joseph Mccarthy had a different birth mother OR father; and if so, an important clue have been sitting right in front of us all along on the 1891 census return.


Just an idea of mine of course; but there may just be some truth to be found.

Thoughts please?


RD

[seanr]

I suspect the digitization process is struggling with reading numbers.

[Scott Nelson]

Thanks RJ. Could there be any foul up in the census, as some have suggested, because both John McCarthys are listed at 42 years of age and Elizabeth and Mary are both listed as 38 on the handwritten version (earliest)? But then Mary is listed as 54 on the digitized version, not 38.

[rjpalmer]

Both the entry for the general shop keeper and for the grocer list McCarthy's age as 42. It's also worth noting that "Mary" and "Elizabeth" are both listed as 38. The later transcriptions of the general shop keeper's age are inaccurate.

[Scott Nelson]

Does anyone have an opinion about which version of the 1891 London census would be more accurate, the handwritten version on microfiche or the digitized version?

Age of John McCarthy on Microfiche version: 42, age on digitized version: 52.

[Scott Nelson]

OK, fine.

I do not believe, that you believe that the John McCarthy on microfiche 50, who is 52 years old and has a wife named Mary and a son named George was the witness who appeared at the inquest. I am at a loss to understand your behaviour.

Unless you produce a single piece of evidence for any of the claims you make, I have no desire to discuss this any further with you.

But I'm still at a loss to understand this statement. I was talking about his age.

[seanr]

See this is the thing, Scott. On the census I give the reference I am using and give the entry number of 50, which if you check is a seperate household to the 27 Dorset Street household of the wealthier boxing promoter.

The wealthier household's number is 52. It's a completely seperate entry. He is likely wealthier because he can afford to employ two household servants. It is absurd to claim that this entire household would have fabricated by Daniel McCarthy because of a business adddress.

I'm sure you checked the source that I gave and yet you pretend that there is some confusion as to which entry I am tallking about.

The local police knew John McCarthy by sight. The Central News journalist had almost certainly never heard of John McCarthy. This is not the press making assumptions, this is what they were informed by the police directly. I do not believe for even one second that you believe a single word of your previous post.

I do not believe, that you believe that the John McCarthy on microfiche 50, who is 52 years old and has a wife named Mary and a son named George was the witness who appeared at the inquest. I am at a loss to understand your behaviour.

Unless you produce a single piece of evidence for any of the claims you make, I have no desire to discuss this any further with you.

[Scott Nelson]

Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
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?


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





This is going to sound like a cop-out, but I think this is one of these mix and match situations. In other words, the press was familiar of the notorious John McCarthy, sports promotor, fundraiser, etc. and because of his business address next to Millers Court, automatically assumed that he was also the landlord who found Mary Kelly's body and appeared at her inquest. The police only said he was a respectable man. It sounds like the press added the bit about getting awarded a prize for collecting money for hospitals.

[Scott Nelson]

Sean, you posted:

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?


Well, it seems you you may be misinformed.

50

I

John

McCarthy

H

M

52 M

General Shop Keeper

Ne

Spitalfields

I took my information that he was 42 from the handwritten 1891 census, which would be the earliest source of the census information. Did the later digitized version make a transcription error? If not, it doesn't really have any bearing on the argument, does it?

RG12/274/130/p.12

[Scott Nelson]

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.

The press reported Millers Court as also being called 'McCarthy's Rents.' A landlord either collects the rents himself (or his wife in the case of McCarthy) or he had someone like Bowyer, so no argument there. There weren't many units in the court.