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.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Was Annie Austin a Ripper Victim?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by seanr View Post
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:
-
-
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.
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:
-
Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
So now McCarthy owns/controls Crossingham’s businesses too? Where on earth does that come from?
Leave a comment:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
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.
William Crossingham, of 64 Western road, Romford, stated that he owned several lodging houses in Dorset street, White's row and Little Paternoster row.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
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.
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:
-
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:
-
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:
Leave a comment: