Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Help On Some Details

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

  • Originally posted by seanr View Post
    The answer as to why he is going all the way up Miller's Court is given in the article; it was the only available supply.
    The "wretched locality" is the court, not the whole street.
    the lodging-house (like Crossinghams) across the road had kitchens, they had to in order to be registered. Water was supplied to houses mostly accessed in the back yards. The water tap was for No.27 & 26, as those rented units were added long after the houses were built.

    The article states Bowyer was employed by McCarthy, not that he was getting water at the time in pursuant of his duties. It doesn't dig into why Bowyer wanted the water or what he wanted it for.
    Scrubbing down, a chore always done at closing time.

    Strange of Bowyer to mention seeing a man in the early hours of Friday, which he did not mention at the inquest.
    Is it also strange that McCarthy makes no mention of forcing the door with the pick?

    If you ever find yourself at an inquest or a trial, you will see that a witness only responds to specific questions. If they are not asked, they will not tell.
    It's really that simple.
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post
      What age was Bowyer?
      He was pictured in the press.



      The press do identify him under two christian names; Thomas and Henry.
      Some reports call him a pensioner, while others call him a young man.
      We may be dealing with a father and son.

      Researchers have been trying to locate him in the census for years.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
        It would, if that is what happened. But that is not what we read.

        Bowyer makes no mention of any arrears in his police statement, nor at the inquest.
        McCarthy told police on Friday that she was in arrears (as many tenants were) but makes no mention of by how much. Which is why I say the debt may have been small.
        It is not until the inquest on Monday where McCarthy comes up with 29 shillings.
        All I'm saying is, there's room for doubt that she owed as much as 29/-.



        I guess the old adage, "why have a dog, and bark yourself", might be appropriate?
        It was probably one of Bowyer's many jobs.
        Bowyer mentioned Mary Kelly being in arrears with the rent at the inquest...

        Thomas Bowyer stated: I live at 37, Dorset-street, and am employed by Mr. McCarthy. I serve in his chandler's shop, 27, Dorset-street. At a quarter to eleven a.m., on Friday morning, I was ordered by McCarthy to go to Mary Jane's room, No. 13. I did not know the deceased by the name of Kelly. I went for rent, which was in arrears. Knocking at the door, I got no answer, and I knocked again and again.


        McCarthy was specific about the arrears after he asked about the rent at the inquest...

        [Coroner] What rent was paid for this room?

        [McCarthy] It was supposed to be 4s 6d a week. Deceased was in arrears 29s. I was to be paid the rent weekly. Arrears are got as best you can.



        McCarthy wouldn't necessarily feel the need to say the amount until asked about the rent at the inquest. With him mentioning it to police on the Friday and Bowyer also saying he went to collect the rent with knowledge of the arrears, it seems fair to say a debt existed. Conversely, she doesn't appear too bothered about it. At least, certainly not the night before another week's rent was due.
        Last edited by Curious Cat; 12-30-2018, 07:43 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
          He was pictured in the press.



          The press do identify him under two christian names; Thomas and Henry.
          Some reports call him a pensioner, while others call him a young man.
          We may be dealing with a father and son.

          Researchers have been trying to locate him in the census for years.
          This is what confused me as I'd always thought the man who first found her was fairly old but then saw him being described as young. Not sure how his description could vary to that degree.

          Comment


          • A woman, who is known by the name of Julia and who was in the habit of continually visiting Kelly's room, states she knew that she had two cotton shirts there.
            Times, 12 Nov. 1888.

            Just the other day I looked at an old copy I have of the A-Z to see if this "Julia" is mentioned.
            The reference for "Julia" has likely been updated, but my copy is ancient.

            Under 'Julia' I read..
            Prostitute who lodged temporarily with Mary Jane Kelly.....etc. But the last sentence reads:
            "According to the East London Advertiser, Julia was German. She may have been Julia Venturney or Van Teurney who was living opposite Kelly in Millers Court by the time of the murder."

            No date is given for this edition of the E. L. A. but this was a weekly publication only on Satruday's.
            We have a copy of the E.L.A. for the 17th Nov. and here there is a paragraph of inquest coverage where we read the testimony of a Julia Vanternie, and here she is described as German.

            There is no mention of a 'Julia' in Barnett's testimony, so this entry in the A-Z is misleading. The A-Z certainly suggests Barnett's "Julia" was German, and that it is the conjecture of the author that Julia Vanturney could be Barnett's "Julia".

            Like I say, maybe this entry has been updated, but as it stands the reference to the E.L.A. needs a date because if it refers to the Nov. 17th edition the reference as written is incorrect.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post
              Bowyer mentioned Mary Kelly being in arrears with the rent at the inquest...

              Thomas Bowyer stated: I live at 37, Dorset-street, and am employed by Mr. McCarthy. I serve in his chandler's shop, 27, Dorset-street. At a quarter to eleven a.m., on Friday morning, I was ordered by McCarthy to go to Mary Jane's room, No. 13. I did not know the deceased by the name of Kelly. I went for rent, which was in arrears. Knocking at the door, I got no answer, and I knocked again and again.
              Yes, you are correct.
              I then found it in the Morning Post, Daily Telegraph & East London Advertiser.
              The E.L.A. actually specifies, "...He went to collect some rent, the deceased being a little in arrears."

              "A little"?
              29/- is not a little, it's more than six weeks rent.

              McCarthy wouldn't necessarily feel the need to say the amount until asked about the rent at the inquest.
              That's true, but telling the police, "they had not kept their payments regularly" only means they are not paying him when it is due, on rent day, not necessarily in arrears.
              The first claim of debt is at the inquest three days later.
              Plenty of time to think something up.
              So, maybe it is true, or maybe the debt was smaller than claimed, but it is also possible the claim is false.

              Conversely, she doesn't appear too bothered about it. At least, certainly not the night before another week's rent was due.
              Some have wondered why Kelly would buy a ha'penny candle from McCarthy on the Wednesday, if she was up to her eyeballs in his debt. Which is a reasonable question to ask.
              I can easily imagine a tenant avoiding McCarthy as best she can if she owed over 6 weeks rent. That is an outrageous debt to owe.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                Yes, you are correct.
                I then found it in the Morning Post, Daily Telegraph & East London Advertiser.
                The E.L.A. actually specifies, "...He went to collect some rent, the deceased being a little in arrears."

                "A little"?
                29/- is not a little, it's more than six weeks rent.

                That's true, but telling the police, "they had not kept their payments regularly" only means they are not paying him when it is due, on rent day, not necessarily in arrears.
                The first claim of debt is at the inquest three days later.
                Plenty of time to think something up.
                So, maybe it is true, or maybe the debt was smaller than claimed, but it is also possible the claim is false.

                Some have wondered why Kelly would buy a ha'penny candle from McCarthy on the Wednesday, if she was up to her eyeballs in his debt. Which is a reasonable question to ask.
                I can easily imagine a tenant avoiding McCarthy as best she can if she owed over 6 weeks rent. That is an outrageous debt to owe.
                McCarthy inquest testimony

                [Coroner] What rent was paid for this room ? - It was supposed to be 4s 6d a week. Deceased was in arrears 29s. I was to be paid the rent weekly. Arrears are got as best you can.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                  A woman, who is known by the name of Julia and who was in the habit of continually visiting Kelly's room, states she knew that she had two cotton shirts there.
                  Times, 12 Nov. 1888.

                  Just the other day I looked at an old copy I have of the A-Z to see if this "Julia" is mentioned.
                  The reference for "Julia" has likely been updated, but my copy is ancient.

                  Under 'Julia' I read..
                  Prostitute who lodged temporarily with Mary Jane Kelly.....etc. But the last sentence reads:
                  "According to the East London Advertiser, Julia was German. She may have been Julia Venturney or Van Teurney who was living opposite Kelly in Millers Court by the time of the murder."

                  No date is given for this edition of the E. L. A. but this was a weekly publication only on Satruday's.
                  We have a copy of the E.L.A. for the 17th Nov. and here there is a paragraph of inquest coverage where we read the testimony of a Julia Vanternie, and here she is described as German.

                  There is no mention of a 'Julia' in Barnett's testimony, so this entry in the A-Z is misleading. The A-Z certainly suggests Barnett's "Julia" was German, and that it is the conjecture of the author that Julia Vanturney could be Barnett's "Julia".

                  Like I say, maybe this entry has been updated, but as it stands the reference to the E.L.A. needs a date because if it refers to the Nov. 17th edition the reference as written is incorrect.
                  For what it's worth, I believe the ELA 17 Nov description of Julia Vanturney as a German could well be a misreporting of her saying she was a charwoman, as other papers report.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                    Yes, you are correct.
                    I then found it in the Morning Post, Daily Telegraph & East London Advertiser.
                    The E.L.A. actually specifies, "...He went to collect some rent, the deceased being a little in arrears."

                    "A little"?
                    29/- is not a little, it's more than six weeks rent.



                    That's true, but telling the police, "they had not kept their payments regularly" only means they are not paying him when it is due, on rent day, not necessarily in arrears.
                    The first claim of debt is at the inquest three days later.
                    Plenty of time to think something up.
                    So, maybe it is true, or maybe the debt was smaller than claimed, but it is also possible the claim is false.



                    Some have wondered why Kelly would buy a ha'penny candle from McCarthy on the Wednesday, if she was up to her eyeballs in his debt. Which is a reasonable question to ask.
                    I can easily imagine a tenant avoiding McCarthy as best she can if she owed over 6 weeks rent. That is an outrageous debt to owe.
                    Jon,
                    It's not true that the first mention of debt is at the inquest, it was mentioned from the off, eg Daily Telegraph 10 Nov;

                    "McCarthy instructed his man, John Bowyer, a pensioned soldier, to call for the money due, the deceased woman having been 29s in arrear."

                    Although the arrears were equal to six full weeks rent, if Mary and Joe had been paying even a few pennies each week then the start of the debt could stretch back even further, possibly to when Barnett lost his regular employment.

                    There's also the effect on some people (eg a good friend of mine) of being given credit. They can be fearfully in debt, yet as long as credit is available they seem incapable of moderating their spending.

                    As for buying a candle, I think lighting is more of a necessity than a luxury. That's like someone in debt today paying their electricity bill rather than their mortgage.

                    Comment


                    • Hi.
                      I would suggest that once The Ripper was caught, Kelly would have been chucked out without reservation. but both Mr and Mrs McCarthy were very aware of the danger on the streets.
                      Regards Richard.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                        Thats very kind of you, welcome to the boards.



                        In my view Lewis was on the same side of Dorset street, approaching Millers Court from behind this couple. I don't mean Lewis was following in their footsteps. She was coming along behind them, so they could have been stood at the entrance of the court for a short time (Hutchinson didn't have a watch, so his "3 mins" is an approximation).


                        Then there are variables to take on board in this case. Say the couple conversed for two minutes instead of three. How big is Dorset street and how long would it have taken to walk down? Considering Sarah Lewis was a young lone female at the height of the Ripper scare and had just seen a creep who had accosted her and her friend two nights before I would say she would have been hurrying along at a decent pace. There is nothing to say the couple was not AK man and Kelly- that possibility must remain but I am not convinced.



                        Correct, if Lewis's couple is another couple entirely (not Astrachan & Kelly) then where are they in her narrative, or where is this "Lewis's couple" in Hutchinson's narrative?


                        Exactly

                        That said, I don't have a problem with omissions, I don't expect either Hutch or Lewis to provide a list of people they see. After all, Lewis is only replying to specific questions at the inquest, not telling a continuous story. And Hutch was only interested in Kelly with Astrachan, and any other potential male suspects, not women passing up and down the street (like Lewis).

                        I get what you are saying but again I am confused by the fact that in the press statement Hutchinson states he saw a man enter the lodging house and he had been looking for him all day. Why was he looking for him? Did he think he was the murderer or did he think he may have seen something too which could help the Police? I do understand though that the question- did you see anyone else really implies other males who could be the murderer.



                        Well said, there is clearly no need for much of the complicated interpretations to try make Hutchinson out to be a liar.


                        I often hear people say that Abberline was desperate for something to go on and that he was duped by Hutchinson. There are two problems with that. One is that instead of being so desperate as to be gullible I think Abberline may instead have become frustrated and cynical. That is to say there were no doubt many many people who came forward with lies and false leads. I am sure Abberline was sick to the back teeth of chancers, drunkards and local busy bodies spreading false stories. Now a guy comes forward claiming he knows and saw the victim- Abberline in my opinion probably went into the room with Hutch thinking 'here we go again'. Second Abberline retired with 85 commendations. He had been local inspector in Whitechapel for 15 years. He was very experienced and most importantly he looked Hutch in the eye, 'interrogated'him and believed what he said. All of us in this forum wouldn't have one millionth of the knowledge Abberline had even if all knowledge was put together. He knew the streets. The people. The workings of the society. Could he have bedn duped? Of course he could but it is extremely unlikely such an experienced and fine detective would have been.

                        Not at all, sometimes going off on a tangent helps to clarify the reason for your thinking. I mean, not everyone is convinced McKenzie was a Ripper victim.
                        I might add, I do not think Astrachan was the killer, but I do see the man outside the Britannia as a very viable Person of Interest.
                        I think AK man was the killer but Brittania man is certainly worthy of more interest. He could be the killer hiding in plain sight and mentioned in a witness statement that most people were more interested in whether the loiterer was George Hutchinson. It is that type of case isn't it.

                        As for later crimes; Mylett, McKenzie & Coles - I just don't know. Though I do agree with Dr Brownfield (Mylett case) when he suggests the Ripper may have used a garrott before the knife.
                        Now I'm going off on a tangent....

                        Certainly a garrot could have been used by the Ripper. But then why use Strides scarf to suffocate her. I know you subscribe to the two cuts in the throat one being to hide the garrot mark but is it more likely one cut was to kill- the other to mutilate for pleasure.

                        All the best

                        Comment


                        • In regards to above Wickerman I forgot to bold my replies. Not sure how to edit on my phone.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                            Jon,
                            Although the arrears were equal to six full weeks rent, if Mary and Joe had been paying even a few pennies each week then the start of the debt could stretch back even further, possibly to when Barnett lost his regular employment.

                            There's also the effect on some people (eg a good friend of mine) of being given credit. They can be fearfully in debt, yet as long as credit is available they seem incapable of moderating their spending.
                            I think these are fair points. Mary might have only been a couple of weeks behind but with, possibly sky high interest on debts it could very easily have accumulated. She was probably charged for the broken window as well.
                            With Mary being [by accounts], younger and prettier than most women of that predicament, McCarthy may have wanted, or indeed could have, pimped her and make her his sex worker with little chance of Mary getting out of the spiraling debt.
                            Didn't he once say that he received a letter or two off Mary's family {Ireland]? could he have been opening her mail to see if any money was sent.
                            One last point, maybe it was even McCarthy who was forcing Mary to accept other women/woman into her home for the extra money. Possibly from prostitution, possibly from rent.
                            Last edited by Darryl Kenyon; 12-31-2018, 05:42 AM.

                            Comment


                            • The first question that comes to mind (Joshua, Darryl) is, can a private person in this case an ordinary landlord, charge interest?

                              Books dealing with social issues in the late 19th century, like Fishman's, East End 1888, tend to suggest a tenant will flit overnight when any debt gets too high, or the harassment gets too much to deal with.
                              Charging interest with a tenant who could be gone at any moment (no real possessions to pack?), maybe more like wishful thinking if you can't get what is owed in the first place.
                              Just as Trevor has reminded us, rents are got as best you can.
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • ive often wondered if McCarthy allowed mary to get so far arrears in her rent without evicting her was because she was giving him sex. I know theres no evidence for it, but that's a long time to let someone get behind in rent.
                                "Is all that we see or seem
                                but a dream within a dream?"

                                -Edgar Allan Poe


                                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                                -Frederick G. Abberline

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X