Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was Annie Austin a Ripper Victim?

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

  • The Macdonald Triad
    replied
    I have nothing new to offer, no actual evidence other than my instinct.

    McCarthy should have been a suspect and immediately transported to an area where he wasn't a police booster.

    And then given the business by a 'nobody,' good with their fists under supervision by real cops with no frickin manners.

    I'm outraged at the cops of London. Even today.

    Leave a comment:


  • seanr
    replied
    Originally posted by seanr View Post
    Click image for larger version  Name:	Screenshot 2022-08-03 at 23.26.56.png Views:	25 Size:	38.2 KB ID:	791467
    Boxing World and Mirror of Life - Saturday 20 May 1911

    Fast forward 10 years and we have a Dan Sullivan working for Jack McCarthy as a Ring Manager. It's not the same Dan Sullivan by any chance?
    No. Different people.

    Daniel Sullivan, the brother of Mog Crossingham nee Sullivan, stated he was 41 in his statement in 1901.

    Dan Sullivan the boxing promoter was 79 when he died in 1954. So, he must have been about 14 years younger than the Crossingham's Dan Sullivan.

    Leave a comment:


  • seanr
    replied
    Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot 2022-08-03 at 23.26.56.png
Views:	125
Size:	38.2 KB
ID:	791467
    Boxing World and Mirror of Life - Saturday 20 May 1911

    Fast forward 10 years and we have a Dan Sullivan working for Jack McCarthy as a Ring Manager. It's not the same Dan Sullivan by any chance?

    Leave a comment:


  • seanr
    replied
    Sergeant French is not giving legal facts, they're not reviewing the deeds to see who owns the land or leases. Sergeant French is providing police attitudes and opinion.

    The police attitude Sergeant French provided in 1898 was:

    As the Dorset Street district belongs to a dweller in it 'MacCarthy' so this belongs to 'Geringer' inhabitant of Little Pearl Street.
    Source: https://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks/b3...63%2C1905.3564

    By the Dorset Street district belongs to a dweller in it 'MacCarthy' what is meant is not that McCarthy owns every house in the district, merely that those streets are under his control.

    Leave a comment:


  • seanr
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

    So now McCarthy owns/controls Crossingham’s businesses too? Where on earth does that come from?
    No. It is possible that Sergeant French's opinion was that the Crossingham properties were controlled by McCarthy. This would explain how Duckworth was provided with the 'information' that McCarthy owned most of the properties in Dorset Street and the houses with the broken windows in Little Paternoster Row.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by seanr View Post

    I don't know off hand which houses in Little Paternoster Row Crossingham owned. But Chris Scotts transcript of the Times coverage from the inquest has:



    I'm pretty sure Crossingham must have owned number 4, which Daniel Sullivan stated he lived at and looked after in his testimony, at the Mary Ann Austin inquest.

    On the Booth notebooks, I don't think Sergeant French would have mistaken Little Paternoster Row and Millers Court. The purpose of Booth's secretaries having a local policeman, like Sergeant French, accompanying them on their walks was to prevent those kinds of mistakes.

    Here's historian David Englander's view on the police opinions expressed in the Booth notebooks. From his essay 'Policing the Ghetto: Jewish East London, 1880-1920' available here: https://journals.openedition.org/chs/1141





    The information in the notebooks makes sense if Sergeant French's opinion/ understanding is that McCarthy owns/ controls Crossingham's properties, too.
    So now McCarthy owns/controls Crossingham’s businesses too? Where on earth does that come from?

    Leave a comment:


  • seanr
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

    Of course it was. I was quoting from an earlier post in this thread.

    Which houses in Little Paternoster Row did Crossingham own? According to Duckworth, the ‘notorious’ Jack McCarthy owned the houses in Paternoster Row, but there is evidence that some outside observers got Millers Court and Little Paternoster Row mixed up.
    I don't know off hand which houses in Little Paternoster Row Crossingham owned. But Chris Scotts transcript of the Times coverage from the inquest has:

    William Crossingham, of 64 Western road, Romford, stated that he owned several lodging houses in Dorset street, White's row and Little Paternoster row.
    I'm pretty sure Crossingham must have owned number 4, which Daniel Sullivan stated he lived at and looked after in his testimony, at the Mary Ann Austin inquest.

    On the Booth notebooks, I don't think Sergeant French would have mistaken Little Paternoster Row and Millers Court. The purpose of Booth's secretaries having a local policeman, like Sergeant French, accompanying them on their walks was to prevent those kinds of mistakes.

    Here's historian David Englander's view on the police opinions expressed in the Booth notebooks. From his essay 'Policing the Ghetto: Jewish East London, 1880-1920' available here: https://journals.openedition.org/chs/1141

    For this purpose the Metropolis was parcelled out into a number of beats each of them patrolled conjointly by interviewer and respondent. Nearly every street in London was visited and its social composition recorded. In H Division Booth and his associates enjoyed the company and co-operation of Inspector Reid, Sergeant French, and Superintendent Mulvaney. Not only were policemen required to identify so called Jewish streets, they also presented much incidental information about the character of the community. ‘During these walks’, wrote Booth, ‘almost every social influence was discussed, and especially those bearing upon vice and crime, drunkenness and disorder’
    Booth’s investigators, though sceptical of much that was said, had no grounds for thinking that police observation was rank-related or distorted by social class. And neither have we. The information given to the Booth Inquiry is probably as representative of police attitudes and opinion as we are likely to obtain.
    The information in the notebooks makes sense if Sergeant French's opinion/ understanding is that McCarthy owns/ controls Crossingham's properties, too.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by seanr View Post


    Pretty sure that's William Crossingham's place. It was William Crossingham who appeared at the inquest as the owner.

    Crossingham also owned a few houses in Little Paternoster Row.
    Of course it was. I was quoting from an earlier post in this thread.

    Which houses in Little Paternoster Row did Crossingham own? According to Duckworth, the ‘notorious’ Jack McCarthy owned the houses in Paternoster Row, but there is evidence that some outside observers got Millers Court and Little Paternoster Row mixed up.

    Leave a comment:


  • seanr
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

    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.

    Pretty sure that's William Crossingham's place. It was William Crossingham who appeared at the inquest as the owner.

    Crossingham also owned a few houses in Little Paternoster Row.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Jack McCarthy’s criminal record consists of a single conviction for being involved in some way in the organisation of a single (not plural) boxing match thereby committing a ‘trifling offence’ that ‘was not considered of sufficient importance to deserve any punishment at all.’ Whether the match was illegal at all was a moot point at the time.

    What a monster the man was.

    The fact that there is no evidence of any other wrongdoing him against is proof that he was as devious as Al Capone, the Krays were babies in comparison and he was probably Jack the Ripper.
    Last edited by MrBarnett; 08-02-2022, 02:29 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    The prosecution actually requested that the case be heard at the Old Bailey so that the abstruse legal issues it threw up could be decided by a higher authority than the Middlesex Sessions.

    Last edited by MrBarnett; 08-02-2022, 02:27 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Part 4
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Part 3
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Part 2

    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    There’s really nothing to see here.

    From Pall Mall Gazette 12th May, 1882:
    Attached Files
    Last edited by MrBarnett; 08-02-2022, 02:09 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X