Was Annie Austin a Ripper Victim?

[MrBarnett]

Can anyone point me in the direction of an image - photo, sketch - of William Crossingham in the press? How about John Satchell?

Presumably they gave press interviews when the residents of their doss houses started dropping like flies. Or perhaps they preferred to keep a low profile so as not to earn unwelcome notoriety.

[MrBarnett]

>> One single conviction for having some involvement in a prize fight which may have been just about technically illegal becomes a history of involvement in ‘illegal boxing matches’ (plural) and makes him a million times more evil than the Krays.<<

Calm down Gary, Nobody has suggested McCarthy was "a million times more evil than the Krays, because of his boxing connections". Even the person that mentioned the Krays (not in connection with boxing I might add) has already admitted the comparison was over the top.


>> What a monster Jack McCarthy was. He was almost certainly personally responsible for all the 11 WM and the criminal mastermind behind every crime that occurred within a 5 mile radius of his lair in Dorset Street. <<

Well said,

Image for example, just because someone was a witness in a high profile murder case, and despite the fact that there was no direct evidence of any kind against them, some people were to go around claiming that witness was responsible for all the unsolved murders, not just in a five mile radius, but right across London!

You posed the question that "McCarthy’s ‘notoriety’ can be traced to a single event - the murder of his tenant, Mary Kelly".

Others have debated that, nothing more.

Have you read the whole of this thread, Dusty?


Another interesting point for those that like John McCarthy as the Ripper. He owned the doss house at 35 Dorset St where Austin was attacked.

[MrBarnett]

You answer your own question... errors and a dubious source. This wasn't comprehensive dig into John McCarthy, his businesses and his associates.

There's a reason we read about characters like Arthur Harding. They fight in public and make a spectacle of themselves, they even gloat about it. They make good copy and they are easy to research. Anyone quietly fixing boxing matches, receiving stolen goods and running brothels behind the guise of a common lodging houses can quietly go about what they are doing without ever needing to be publicly responsible for disorder.

The subtitle of ‘Mob Town’ by John Bennett (which I haven't read, by the way) is 'A History of Crime and Disorder in the East End'. It's in the title, he's looking for examples of disorder. He wouldn't be interested in say more bureaucratic crimes like fixing the prices of barrows in Spitalfield's market or running protection rackets against the local pubs, unless these things spilled over into violence. And even then, they want to talk about who threw the punches and not who employed them.




There might not ever be anything conclusive. Collecting evidence against him would have been difficult even if he was guilty of giving the orders for any crime (emphasis on if). The best we might ever get is a weight of inference. We know he hired muscle who carried (and used) knives and sometimes revolvers. We know at least some describe his properties as brothels, we know some suggest he controlled a whole street.
We also know he formed business associations with convicted fraudsters. That he spent many years in the East End boxing industry and backed many boxers, perhaps putting up the prizes up for prize fights.
How much money are we talking about? - to back so many boxers, buy and lease so many houses and to (part?) own a church and renovate it to create a major boxing venue in Blackfriars.

Where did the money come from?

And where did he find the time? - we know his shop was open for many hours and he was supposedly there manning it as a mild mannered chandler shop owner.

Imagine if we could implicate him in relation to a fixed boxing match, or if we can find an associate of his committing a string of assaults including one which led to a man's death and one where a revolver is held to a Spitalfield's publican's head - and even after all this this associate continues to enjoy McCarthy's patronage in public and rubs shoulders with his showbiz friends or what if we can find some extremely valuable stolen goods turning up in the hands of a general manager in his employ and inside of an establishment he owns?

If we could establish things like this, in addition to the things we can acknowledge right now, would you admit to at least a little doubt?

Remind me, how much did Gehringer leave in his will? Far less than William Crossingham. And the combined wealth of Crossingham, McCarthy Gehringer was a drop in the ocean compared to the real heavyweights in the business, the Oylers.

Do you really envisage McCarthy sitting behind the counter in his shop all day selling screws of tea?

Spitalfieds was a tough neighbourhood and I have no doubt that McCarthy was a hard man. I’ve no doubt that nefarious goings on occurred on his various premises.

So far, your evidence seems to be coded references to organised crime in the sporting press and the misdeeds of people McCarthy may have crossed paths with.

[MrBarnett]

Mr. Barnett,

What if the reason Mary Kelly was so far in arrears (rent wise) was because she was young and pretty and an old Pimp like McCarthy would be willing to take her on her word? Just had an epiphany, I wonder if all the Whitechapel victims (all 11) were in arrears to a certain Dorset St slumlord?

You aren’t the first to have that that totally baseless epiphany.

[MrBarnett]

Source: https://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks/b3....0924%2C1772.5

Emphasis placed in bold is mine, not George Duckworth's.

From the context, people can decide for themselves whether Jack McCarthy is notorious because he was the landlord of Mary Kelly.

To me it's clear that Jack McCarthy is considered notorious because of the state of his houses and the people who live there. It's not clear if these are Duckworth's own words, or the words that Sergeant French used to describe the street to him. But it has nothing to do with Mary Kelly.

People should first investigate whether McCarthy actually owned any property in Little Paternoster Row. And then ask themselves why he was ‘notorious’ when Crossingham and a dozen others running similar businesses and having a similar clientele in the area didn’t get a mention.

[The Macdonald Triad]

Mr. Barnett,

What if the reason Mary Kelly was so far in arrears (rent wise) was because she was young and pretty and an old Pimp like McCarthy would be willing to take her on her word? Just had an epiphany, I wonder if all the Whitechapel victims (all 11) were in arrears to a certain Dorset St slumlord?

[seanr]

So, in a book about organised crime in London, McCarthy gets a single mention, complete with errors and a dubious source.

You answer your own question... errors and a dubious source. This wasn't comprehensive dig into John McCarthy, his businesses and his associates.

There's a reason we read about characters like Arthur Harding. They fight in public and make a spectacle of themselves, they even gloat about it. They make good copy and they are easy to research. Anyone quietly fixing boxing matches, receiving stolen goods and running brothels behind the guise of a common lodging houses can quietly go about what they are doing without ever needing to be publicly responsible for disorder.

The subtitle of ‘Mob Town’ by John Bennett (which I haven't read, by the way) is 'A History of Crime and Disorder in the East End'. It's in the title, he's looking for examples of disorder. He wouldn't be interested in say more bureaucratic crimes like fixing the prices of barrows in Spitalfield's market or running protection rackets against the local pubs, unless these things spilled over into violence. And even then, they want to talk about who threw the punches and not who employed them.

Note to McCarthy accusers: must try harder. Find something serious. Anything!

There might not ever be anything conclusive. Collecting evidence against him would have been difficult even if he was guilty of giving the orders for any crime (emphasis on if). The best we might ever get is a weight of inference. We know he hired muscle who carried (and used) knives and sometimes revolvers. We know at least some describe his properties as brothels, we know some suggest he controlled a whole street.
We also know he formed business associations with convicted fraudsters. That he spent many years in the East End boxing industry and backed many boxers, perhaps putting up the prizes up for prize fights.
How much money are we talking about? - to back so many boxers, buy and lease so many houses and to (part?) own a church and renovate it to create a major boxing venue in Blackfriars.

Where did the money come from?

And where did he find the time? - we know his shop was open for many hours and he was supposedly there manning it as a mild mannered chandler shop owner.

Imagine if we could implicate him in relation to a fixed boxing match, or if we can find an associate of his committing a string of assaults including one which led to a man's death and one where a revolver is held to a Spitalfield's publican's head - and even after all this this associate continues to enjoy McCarthy's patronage in public and rubs shoulders with his showbiz friends or what if we can find some extremely valuable stolen goods turning up in the hands of a general manager in his employ and inside of an establishment he owns?

If we could establish things like this, in addition to the things we can acknowledge right now, would you admit to at least a little doubt?

[The Macdonald Triad]

Source: https://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks/b3....0924%2C1772.5

Emphasis placed in bold is mine, not George Duckworth's.

From the context, people can decide for themselves whether Jack McCarthy is notorious because he was the landlord of Mary Kelly.

To me it's clear that Jack McCarthy is considered notorious because of the state of his houses and the people who live there. It's not clear if these are Duckworth's own words, or the words that Sergeant French used to describe the street to him. But it has nothing to do with Mary Kelly.

It's odd how Mr Barnett brings McCarthy's henchmen to the front but then almost apologizes for them in the same breath. I'm sure we'll some tripe about how he wasn't a slum lord but a businessman.

[seanr]

At the west end of Dorset Street leading into Brushfield Street is Little Paternoster 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 & broken, prostitutes, thieves, ponces. Buildings owned by the notorious Jack McCarthy of Dorset Street.

Source: https://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks/b3....0924%2C1772.5

Emphasis placed in bold is mine, not George Duckworth's.

From the context, people can decide for themselves whether Jack McCarthy is notorious because he was the landlord of Mary Kelly.

To me it's clear that Jack McCarthy is considered notorious because of the state of his houses and the people who live there. It's not clear if these are Duckworth's own words, or the words that Sergeant French used to describe the street to him. But it has nothing to do with Mary Kelly.

[drstrange169]

>> One single conviction for having some involvement in a prize fight which may have been just about technically illegal becomes a history of involvement in ‘illegal boxing matches’ (plural) and makes him a million times more evil than the Krays.<<

Calm down Gary, Nobody has suggested McCarthy was "a million times more evil than the Krays, because of his boxing connections". Even the person that mentioned the Krays (not in connection with boxing I might add) has already admitted the comparison was over the top.


>> What a monster Jack McCarthy was. He was almost certainly personally responsible for all the 11 WM and the criminal mastermind behind every crime that occurred within a 5 mile radius of his lair in Dorset Street. <<

Well said,

Image for example, just because someone was a witness in a high profile murder case, and despite the fact that there was no direct evidence of any kind against them, some people were to go around claiming that witness was responsible for all the unsolved murders, not just in a five mile radius, but right across London!

You posed the question that "McCarthy’s ‘notoriety’ can be traced to a single event - the murder of his tenant, Mary Kelly".

Others have debated that, nothing more.

[MrBarnett]

If Bennett’s talking about McCarthy, his statements that the charges being more serious than just organising the fight and receiving a fine are both wrong.

The note 58 against the claim about Thick ‘enjoying a financially beneficial relationship with the Lords of Spitalfields seems to be attributed to the Daily News of 29th March, but I suspect it should have to Tom Wescott’s The Bank Holiday Murders, a highly entertaining - one of my favourite Ripper books - but largely conjectural.

So, in a book about organised crime in London, McCarthy gets a single mention, complete with errors and a dubious source.

Note to McCarthy accusers: must try harder. Find something serious. Anything!

[MrBarnett]

Sean,

Have you read ‘Mob Town’ by John Bennett?

McCarthy gets a mention in that.

Gary

[seanr]

Well, MrBarnett you've only gone and done it... you found the generational link from McCarthy to acknowledged gangsters of the next generation such as Jack Spot and Charles Sabini, with an extra spice of weirdness with William Brogdon Jnr (the son of the Chief Constable of Great Yarmouth, addressee of the strange 14 Dorset Street letter).

What on earth am I blabbering on about?

Seems there's a lot to be said about the boxing venue The Ring in Blackfriars. As the article was posted originally at the other place, out of sheer manners it seems right to say those things over there. https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/vict...g-organisation
It will complement some of the discussion points which have been raised in this thread.

For the sheer fun of it, I've started out with the most 'conspiracy theory' observation I think can be made about the 'The Ring Organisation' article.

[seanr]

Yes, Capone was devious, but there’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that he was a major crime figure, is there? Are you really comparing him to McCarthy?

Any higher offers out there? Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Putin? Satan?

After all, there is some doubt about how much padding there was in those gloves.

I am not comparing Capone to McCarthy, no. Rather using Capone a useful example to demonstrate how difficult it would be to ever prove if other figures were involved in crime. There's real doubt Capone was a major crime figure, yet it cannot be proved conclusively he was.

I would have thought the phrase 'If John McCarthy was not involved in serious villainy then no evidence to connect him would be found' would have made it clear.

I mean, they had to get Charles Manson on 'conspiracy'.

[MrBarnett]

They had to get Al Capone on tax evasion. One of the problems with prosecuting organised crime is that it is very difficult to prove and almost impossible to show a connection to the leaders of the organisations, leading to a tendency to take out the foot-soldiers, but never the field marshalls.

If John McCarthy was not involved in serious villainy then no evidence to connect him would be found, and if he was he would have been careful to avoid evidence which led back to him. So no conclusive evidence may ever be found.

Asking the questions remains valid.

Yes, Capone was devious, but there’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that he was a major crime figure, is there? Are you really comparing him to McCarthy?

Any higher offers out there? Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Putin? Satan?

After all, there is some doubt about how much padding there was in those gloves.