Millers court... A brothel?!

[The Good Michael]

It wasn't a brothel, though Mccarthy could have been a purveyor of a few of the women there. I believe there were 3 known prostitutes at the Court, maybe 4. I can't recall. Also, I don't believe that it is known why Barnett lost his job. In the inquiry as in the papers, it doesn't say.

Mike

[Mary_Jane_Kelly]

Quite possibly. Does it matter? Does it get us any closer to solving the Ripper murders?

Yes of course it matters, It would mean that the resident's witness statements might not be reliable. If Mcarthy and his 'assistant' were involved in the goings (possibly pimping) on then they would have incriminated themselves by explaining everything that happened that night and the fact that they were the first on the scene would start to be more suspicious.

[GUT]

If it were a brothel, I can't think of a better place to find prostitutes, if that's what the killer was after.

[John Wheat]

Was Millers court a brothel?

Nearly every resident was a prostitute, Mary Kelly was known to let other girls stay/work with her and the other prostitutes living in the court might have let girls stay with them too. From the reports and resident interviews at the time it looks like prostitutes were still in abundance here for some years after. Seems like a lot of prostitutes residing/working from the same location. Is this a coincidence or was it a known place of prostitution?

Quite possibly. Does it matter? Does it get us any closer to solving the Ripper murders?

[GUT]

Yes there are a few sources it isnt hidden knowledge. I think he even mentioned it himself at the inquiry. He was a fish porter (or something similar) and lost his job through theft in early August/September.

He may have given her money 'on occasion' but there is nothing to say he supported her fully. Knowing Mary was a prostitute is one thing, living in a small room with her and other prostitutes is another, it was probably the last straw for their relationship (they were known be be a volatile couple).

Maybe you could post the part of the inquest where Joe says he list his job because of theft.

[MysterySinger]

I wouldn't necessarily label Miller's Court a brothel at all. There were far more people living there than are immediately apparent from the reports and this includes families. Suspect it wasn't much different to other similar courts around or other areas where accommodation needed to be cheap.

I would refer to you to previous discussions about the residents of Miller's Court which starts to provide lists of the residents as far as possible.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...=millers+court

[Joshua Rogan]

If Mcarthy was involved in the illicit goings on it would make sense, but would that mean that the 'rent' he was collecting was inflated and he wouldnt want his exploitation of the situation known.

I don't think McCarthy's rent demands were inflated. He was charging Mary and Joe 4 shillings and sixpence a week for a furnished room - less than 8 pence a night - which is actually cheaper than a double bed in a common lodging house. Plus he was prepared to let her get in arrears, when he could have simply evicted her. The possibility remains that he was exploiting his tenants somehow, but if so he seems to have kept his nose clean...or had friends in high places;

Irish Times 10 Nov
"Mr M'Carthy is spoken of by the police as a most respectable man, and was recently awarded a prize for collecting money for the hospitals. He is naturally much distressed at the terrible tragedy which has occurred literally at his door."

[Mary_Jane_Kelly]

Telegraph 10 Nov
Mrs Prater interview: it was a common thing for the women living in these tenements to bring men home with them. They could do so as they pleased.....Kelly was, she admitted, one of her own class, and she made no secret of her way of gaining a living

However, in the same paper, "The landlord emphatically disowns any knowledge of his tenement having been used for improper purposes"

And yet, the Daily News 10 Nov says;
"Mr. McCarthy, the proprietor of this shop, has no hesitation in avowing his knowledge that all his six houses were tenanted by women of a certain class. They were let out in separate rooms "furnished," that is to say, there is in each of them a bed and a table, and, perhaps, one or two odds and ends, all of the roughest and most trumpery description, since if any of the things had any appreciable value in the market they would be certain to disappear."

I think McCarthy would have been well aware of how the women of the court earned their rent money (at least on occasion), but turned a blind eye, for legal purposes and possibly more. He may even have seen himself as something of a benefactor - check out his defence of Dorset St a decade or so later;
http://www.casebook.org/victorian_lo...in-london.html

If Mcarthy was involved in the illicit goings on it would make sense, but would that mean that the 'rent' he was collecting was inflated and he wouldnt want his exploitation of the situation known.

[Mary_Jane_Kelly]

That's interesting, I wasn't aware of why Joe lost is job. Any sources?

Joe said he gave Mary money when he could, after they split up. This could have been an attempt to show he wasn't living off immoral earnings, I suppose. But if Joe knew that Mary was walking the streets whilst she lived with him, why would another prostitute staying for a couple of days have upset him enough to leave?

Yes there are a few sources it isnt hidden knowledge. I think he even mentioned it himself at the inquiry. He was a fish porter (or something similar) and lost his job through theft in early August/September.

He may have given her money 'on occasion' but there is nothing to say he supported her fully. Knowing Mary was a prostitute is one thing, living in a small room with her and other prostitutes is another, it was probably the last straw for their relationship (they were known be be a volatile couple).

[Mary_Jane_Kelly]

Hi,
The police believed[ at least initially] that the Millers court murder was committed in Daylight,, even though the medical opinion said otherwise,
''Why''?
Was that based on one witness Maxwell, or did they form that opinion from other sources?
They were the investigation at the time, they were there, so surely we should not dismiss easily..
With reference to Millers court being a brothel. I would say not with the knowledge of Mr and Mrs McCarthy,
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,

Yes there was more than one witness to her being seen he next morning I think, at least too many to just completely refute the idea. The was that tailor so came forward to seeing her twice the next morning and someone else came forward to say Mary and Joe were in the horn o plenty pub the day after. I believe there was more.

[Joshua Rogan]

Telegraph 10 Nov
Mrs Prater interview: it was a common thing for the women living in these tenements to bring men home with them. They could do so as they pleased.....Kelly was, she admitted, one of her own class, and she made no secret of her way of gaining a living

However, in the same paper, "The landlord emphatically disowns any knowledge of his tenement having been used for improper purposes"

And yet, the Daily News 10 Nov says;
"Mr. McCarthy, the proprietor of this shop, has no hesitation in avowing his knowledge that all his six houses were tenanted by women of a certain class. They were let out in separate rooms "furnished," that is to say, there is in each of them a bed and a table, and, perhaps, one or two odds and ends, all of the roughest and most trumpery description, since if any of the things had any appreciable value in the market they would be certain to disappear."

I think McCarthy would have been well aware of how the women of the court earned their rent money (at least on occasion), but turned a blind eye, for legal purposes and possibly more. He may even have seen himself as something of a benefactor - check out his defence of Dorset St a decade or so later;
http://www.casebook.org/victorian_lo...in-london.html

[Joshua Rogan]

He had lost his job, through theft, so its clear he wasnt able to support them both and there is no evidence that he was supporting them both anyway. She was a known prostitute who was even sharing her room with other prostitutes and that was the reason he left her, this is fact. Whether or not she didnt walk the streets for a short period whilst she was with Barnett is neither here or there.

That's interesting, I wasn't aware of why Joe lost is job. Any sources?

Joe said he gave Mary money when he could, after they split up. This could have been an attempt to show he wasn't living off immoral earnings, I suppose. But if Joe knew that Mary was walking the streets whilst she lived with him, why would another prostitute staying for a couple of days have upset him enough to leave?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
The police believed[ at least initially] that the Millers court murder was committed in Daylight,, even though the medical opinion said otherwise,
''Why''?
Was that based on one witness Maxwell, or did they form that opinion from other sources?
They were the investigation at the time, they were there, so surely we should not dismiss easily..
With reference to Millers court being a brothel. I would say not with the knowledge of Mr and Mrs McCarthy,
Regards Richard.

[jason_c]

What evidence is that? She was a known to be a prostitute before she was with him, he had lost his job at some point so would have been unable to really support them both and he left her because of other prostitutes staying in the room. He doesn't say whether or not she worked as one while she was with him but considering the evidence its most likely she did.

If all the prostitutes were completely destitute then they would be homeless or living night to night in doss houses if they had made enough money. Mary (and the other girls) in millers court might have been low class but they were renting their own rooms and seem to be doing ok compared to alot.

If millers court was a known place for prostitutes it would seem a strange place for the ripper to go find a victim and remain there while he mutilated her for a few hours (with the possibility of someone coming to visit her). Prostitutes would have been coming and going with their clients and men would be possibly hanging around, considering Mary's room was right at the entrance to the court, would be a risk to him unlike killing someone alone in a secluded area.

As has been said Miller's Court was probably better described as a place you could pick up prostitutes. It was not a brothel. Im sure there is a legal definition of a brothel and that McCarthy made sure his practices in Miller's Court mostly stayed well away from the legal definition. At least nothing could be proven against him. He received his money was from rent of property, where his residents got their rent money was little concern of his.

I don't think it at all strange that the ripper remained with Kelly mutilating her. Part of the role of a prostitute is to provide seclusion for her and her customer(she'd get little repeat business otherwise). I think her killer was on safe ground expecting not to be interrupted for an hour or so. 4am on a cold Autumn morning must surely be a relatively quiet period for most London prostitutes.

[Spider]

If millers court was a known place for prostitutes it would seem a strange place for the ripper to go find a victim .

Unless it was familiar territory and he knew her/had been there before?