the Rent arrears

[Sam Flynn]

Gee, I dunno, Gareth. Maybe because we're interested in all facets of the case.

So am I, Chava - which is why I find the *facts* that McCarthy had a servant named Bowyer, a shop and a burgeoning property rental business to run sufficiently interesting in themselves. They alone are enough to account for McCarthy's not collecting the rent personally, without speculating that McCarthy "set Bowyer up" to find Kelly's body.

Not only that, but avoiding the "Scooby Doo" approach to the case also allows us to uncover potentially more interesting facets (viz., the local economy, the practices of landlords, the potential effect that the murders had on people's behaviour) than arbitrarily pencilling McCarthy into the suspect list is ever likely to do.

[Chava]

So am I, Chava - which is why I find the *facts* that McCarthy had a servant named Bowyer, a shop and a burgeoning property rental business to run sufficiently interesting in themselves. They alone are enough to account for McCarthy's not collecting the rent personally, without speculating that McCarthy "set Bowyer up" to find Kelly's body.

Not only that, but avoiding the "Scooby Doo" approach to the case also allows us to uncover potentially more interesting facets (viz., the local economy, the practices of landlords, the potential effect that the murders had on people's behaviour) than arbitrarily pencilling McCarthy into the suspect list is ever likely to do.

But that's my point, Gareth. We can't take anyone out of the suspect list unless we know for sure that he wasn't involved. How do we know that about McCarthy? What proof do you have that he wasn't involved in the murders, or maybe just in Kelly's murder? He was there on the night. He was there at the right time. Why could he not have killed her?

I would never ever tell you that a suspect of yours was categorically not the killer. Even though I might believe that he wasn't. Because I can't rule him out. And you can't rule McCarthy out. Yes, he seemed to have a 'normal' life, and he had a few kids, so probably wasn't sexually inadequate. But not all killers are crazy loners. I like him for Kelly and you don't, and that's OK. But please don't tell me that I am 'arbitrarily penciling McCarthy' into the frame, because I can assure you that there is nothing arbitrary about it. She owed him a bunch of money. He wasn't known as the benevolent little father of the district. You might come up with all kinds of nice reasons why he let her run up that rent bill, but the fact remains that you don't know why and neither do I. Given that, and his presence on scene, and he makes a pretty good candidate. Nothing arbitrary about that. Nor does his candidacy for the killer prevent me from researching conditions at the time in Whitechapel. landlords' practice etc.

Am I certain McCarthy was the killer? Hell, no. I think the likely killer was some very lucky East End working man. But I think there is a possibility that McCarthy killed her. And not a remote possibility either.

[ianincleveland]

Thanks, Ian. I have thought the same thing for years and years! If McCarthy was that interested in the rent, he could have walked out of his shop and turned left. It would have taken him all of 10 seconds to reach #13. But he sent Bowyer. Given that, and the fact that he wouldn't produce a key to open the door--even though I'll bet as landlord he had one--McCarthy will never be completely out of the frame for me. However he seemed to be a normal man leading a fairly normal life, albeit in the middle of a lot of craziness and nastiness. He's a slumlord, but so were many others.

McCarthy is the best candidate I have for the Kelly killing in terms of means, opportunity and (maybe) motive. If she had something on him and was using it to get herself a rent-free crib, I could see him wanting to kill her and maybe fake a Ripper killing. I'm still not entirely convinced that Kelly is in fact a Ripper victim, and I'll be on the fence about this forever, I think!

Totally agree with all of that.now i live in rented property and my landlord has a spare key,was lucky once when id locked myself out.Now even though ive been a tenant of theirs for over 3 yrs im sure something would be said if i got 6 weeks behind with the rent.I might not be evicted but steps im sure would be expected for me to pay the rent in future and to pay SOME arrears each week.The climate of 1888 would make me think id be evicted for 6 weeks arrears.now i realise Whitechapel was hardly a booming area,McCarthys rent actually appears expensive for the area though ive not done any research to see if it was the average for what was provided.But considering living conditions and wages it seems a lot of money for what he provided

Ive always thought Kelly was killed by McCarthy though for what reason im not sure,either lust or she knew something and threatened to expose him.Im not and never have said hes JTR,but im suspicous Kelly and quite possibly Stride werent ripper victims and that JTR killed for definete 3 women only(Nicholls,Chapman and Eddowes).

Even a person such as Charles Booth described McCarthy as a "bully" which in that period was slang for a pimp.even if he meant it in todays meaning itd hardly be a glowing reference for McCarthy.Arthur Harding a well known villain of the time said Mccarthy was a "bully" as well,now we may treat the claims of a career criminal like Harding with some sceptisism but it could be said hed know who the "bullies" were,his claim is also backed by Booth who unlike maybe Harding wouldnt have an axe to grind.

[Sam Flynn]

I would never ever tell you that a suspect of yours was categorically not the killer. Even though I might believe that he wasn't. Because I can't rule him out. And you can't rule McCarthy out.

My point is that I can't rule him in, except by invoking cloak-and-dagger scenarios - such as the "mystery" of why McCarthy sent Bowyer round for the rent, or the "mystery" of why he let Kelly accumulate the arrears.

Take such mysteries away - it's easy to find simple explanations for them that make perfect sense - and all one is left with is McCarthy as "someone who happened to be there". The same criterion may be applied to over 300 men in Dorset Street alone, and several thousand more within a radius of a couple of hundred yards.


Edit: As I've suggested to Ian, Chava - might be better to continue on a "McCarthy" suspect thread, lest this goodly banter be lost/mis-filed

[Sam Flynn]

Even a person such as Charles Booth described McCarthy as a "bully" which in that period was slang for a pimp.

... it was also the non-slang, commonplace, term for "a bully", plain and simple.

It might be better if we continued this on a "Suspects/McCarthy" thread, Ian. See you there

[rain]

My point is that I can't rule him in, except by invoking cloak-and-dagger scenarios - such as the "mystery" of why McCarthy sent Bowyer round for the rent, or the "mystery" of why he let Kelly accumulate the arrears.

Take such mysteries away - it's easy to find simple explanations for them that make perfect sense - and all one is left with is McCarthy as "someone who happened to be there". The same criterion may be applied to over 300 men in Dorset Street alone, and several thousand more within a radius of a couple of hundred yards.


Edit: As I've suggested to Ian, Chava - might be better to continue on a "McCarthy" suspect thread, lest this goodly banter be lost/mis-filed

Not that it would be impossible for McCarthy to be the killer but Mary Kelly was butchered in the most terrible way. This should be also taken in consideration when trying to figure out her killer.

[Jeff Leahy]

Look its pretty simple. Mccarthy just happened to be there. The wrong place at the wrong time...its that simple, no conspiracy, no alternative motive, he rented out rooms, lots of rooms, and Kelly was a tenant...

She got murdered by a serial killer...

There, we can all sleep now.

Pirate

PS just listen to uncle Sam

[Jez]

Very profound post, if you meant it.
The lives of victims - whether it be of Jack the Ripper, the Zodiac killer, Green River murders etc - rarely shed light on their killer. A serial murderer passed their way. We are all hung up on the victim's lives, but when we finally know who Mary kelly's granny was, it will not bring us one inch closer to her murderer. A serial killer passed her way. That is all.

[Chava]

Gareth, I have to say this, who promoted you to thread cop? It's not that I mind, but you've spent more time patrolling these threads than PC Plod did patrolling Millers Court.

In any case, McCarthy is the guy who Kelly owed the rent to, so I think such a conversation is appropriate to this thread. As for whether he was the killer or not, who knows? But I know this, there is no law that says that Kelly was killed by a total stranger. We cannot rule McCarthy out. We can't. There is not a scrap of exculpatory evidence. He was there. She owed him rent. There had to have been a reason for him to allow that. She died 12 feet away from him. Where in hell can you say for sure he didn't kill her? For the matter of that, how can you presume to say he wasn't the Ripper? He could be her landlord and a serial killer. You spent a ton of time pointing out to Michael how wrong he was to jump to conclusions based on very little evidence and now you come up with this? Note I'm not saying 'McCarthy killed Kelly'. All I'm saying is 'it's possible McCarthy killed Kelly. And it's possible that he killed the others.' That's it. That's all.

Prove me wrong. And while you're doing it, don't give me this:

Take such mysteries away - it's easy to find simple explanations for them that make perfect sense - and all one is left with is McCarthy as "someone who happened to be there". The same criterion may be applied to over 300 men in Dorset Street alone, and several thousand more within a radius of a couple of hundred yards.

Because you know what? That is supposition, nothing else. Several thousand men in a radius of a couple of hundred yards did not know the victim, did not allow the victim to run up an unreasonable rent bill, did not have a key to the victim's room. Were not a few feet away from the victim at the time she died.

So, ok, Gareth. Where is your proof.

[Marlowe]

Hi Chava,

You think that McCarthy had her killed or that he killed her, himself? I'm mean, we know Jack wanted to get the red ink off his hands, but...

[Chava]

Hi Chava,

You think that McCarthy had her killed or that he killed her, himself? I'm mean, we know Jack wanted to get the red ink off his hands, but...

Marlowe, I don't think anything! It's an interesting proposition that he had her killed, I hadn't thought of that. As for McCarthy, he's not My Suspect, although he definitely is one of 'em! I like him for all the reasons I've already outlined. I am thoroughly on the fence about the Kelly killing. I can see all the reasons why she is a Ripper victim, but I can also see all the reasons why she isn't. Without a time machine and a good 21st century forensics expert, we'll never know.

[Marlowe]

Hey Chava, I've got a question -- off topic -- while Sam's sleeping :-) What's the English/male equivalent of your name? How 'bout Henry? Any chance of that?

[Supe]

Chava,

All I'm saying is 'it's possible McCarthy killed Kelly. And it's possible that he killed the others.

Well yes, it is possible in the sense that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in even Gareth's philosophy. And you are free to speculate and investigate however much you want. But on balance it is my opinion you would be better served turning your energies elsewhere.

Because you know what? That is supposition, nothing else.

Gareth's statement that there were many possible suspects as good (or better) as McCarthy in close proximity is a bit more than supposition. I wrote an article nearly two years ago ["A Parade Before the Lord Mayor's?" Ripperologist 77 March 2007] in which I looked at all the men--known, probable and possible--who could have been in Miller's Court (a few even "walking a bull pup") that night and the list was quite sizeable. The court was hardly a "gated community" and there were complaints of men coming and going at all hours.

One of those walking down the archway could very possibly have been John McCarthy, but it also could have been Walter Sickert or Dr. Gull. And that is what makes this game of pin the rap on the donkey such fun.

Don.

[Chava]

Marlowe, Henry would work. I like Harry better!

Don, could have been all sorts of people! But, unlike Walter Sickert and Dr Gull, we know McCarthy was on site at roughly the right time.

But what I am screaming about is not McCarthy. What I am screaming about is the attitude that it couldn't have been McCarthy. That is precisely what helped Peter Sutcliffe murder at least 6 more women than necessary. He didn't have a North-East accent. The guy who sent the tape had a North-East accent. Ergo it couldn't be Sutcliffe. No matter that he was well-known as a kerb-crawler in the area. No matter that he was one of the men paid with a payroll including a fiver that was found in Scottish Jean's handbag. People had made their suspicions about Sutcliffe known to the police more than once. But hey, he's not from the right area so it couldn't be him.

But it was him.

You are dismissing McCarthy because you don't think it could be him. Why I'm not sure. There isn't the wealth of evidence there was on Sutcliffe, but there are certainly questions I would love to get answers to. Starting with 'how come you let Mary Jane run up that huge rent bill?' Given that and his presence on scene, he could as easily have been a killer as anyone else in the files.

I'm tired of people disregarding what should be a basic principle of this case, which is Keep An Open Mind. We could argue back and forth on all kinds of stuff. I will never tell you you are wrong about any suspect you come up with. And in return, perhaps you will never again tell me how best to use my energy. That is disrespectful.

[Sam Flynn]

Gareth, I have to say this, who promoted you to thread cop?

Nobody, Chava. I try to follow the site rules, that's all - and we should all do so. Off-topic posting and "hobby-horsing" (or "Kudzu", as another unofficial thread cop once memorably put it) goes against those rules.

There's actually a sympathetic, rather than an authoritarian, aspect of my "thread-cop" (or should that be "thread-vigilante"?) motivation which most people fail to see. I think about those coming to these threads for the first time in search of "X", but instead find too much of "Y" and "Z". If one bought a dictionary or encyclopaedia that worked like that, most people would rightly take it back to the bookshop. Those too meek or green not to do anything about it might receive some friendly, "unofficial", advice from some friends that would ultimately be of their benefit.

As we are largely a community of friends, think of my interjections in those terms. If folks can't, then they should read the site rules. At least then we might see fewer threads go off at unrelated tangents or, all-too often, down the pan. It is by dint of the latter phenomenon that it would be rather pointless of one to use the "report post" button - off-topic posting happens so frequently that the mods would be snowed under.

It doesn't take a PhD in librarianship to know that if there are two "super-threads" entitled "Victims/Kelly" and "Suspects/McCarthy", then any discussion of McCarthy as a suspect belongs in the latter, not the former. I can't see the problem with gentle reminders - which is invariably how I approach these things. If a poster suggests taking the discussion to a different thread when a sufficiently important, but discrete, theme emerges from another one, then good for them.