the Rent arrears

[Chava]

This is a question of rent. Kelly owes it to McCarthy. So let's examine this closely:

Kelly and Barnett move in to #13 Millers Court, rent 4/6 a week. Absolutely normal to pay rent by the week. I paid my bedsits by the week when I was a student. Barnett supports the couple but loses his job. There are conflicting reports as to when, but it seems to have happened in June or July. However the couple manage to keep paying rent until roughly the beginning of October. They are quarrelling and fighting. Barnett moves out around the third week of October, maybe a few days later. He continues to try and give Kelly money--probably he's doing casual labour which would have been likely how he paid the rent from when he lost his steady job to October.

Kelly stays on in 13 Millers Court. Barnett gives her a few bob, as apparently does another former boyfriend. We have been told she was working as a prostitute, but she's not paying down her rent bill. By November 9th 1888, she doesn't seem to have any real source of income. She seems to enjoy drinking, so whatever she earns, it's possible that she drinks it. Like Nichols and Chapman did.

Now let's change the focus a little. Let's suppose that Mary Jane Kelly was not murdered on November 9th. Let's move to November 10th. She's still in the room, still not paying rent. John McCarthy has let her run up a 29s debt. It's been suggested that he was too tender-hearted a landlord to put her out on the street. It's also been suggested that landlords don't always evict delinquent tenants. Especially if not all rooms are rented in the court. It's certainly possible that keeping Kelly around means that he doesn't have to repair the broken window in the room. If she owes a bunch of rent, she's hardly likely to complain about that! Except of course, that fixing that window would probably cost a couple of shillings at most, and Kelly right now is a 4/6 per week drain on resources.

However McCarthy--who doesn't sound like a stupid man--must realize that Kelly is probably never going to be in a position to pay rent. Even if he forgives her the debt, she still has no money and no visible means of support. She doesn't have a man supporting her. She's not working really hard as a prostitute and is known as a drinker. Her prior MO is to find a man and live off him, but that will be hard to do as a tart. A large part of the appeal of hiring a prostitute, I would think, would be the lack of continuing (financial) commitment. It's unlikely a punter will fall in love and ask to move in.

There are those on the board who will say 'who cares whether she could ever pay the rent! McCarthy may well have decided to let her stay anyway and we'll never know his reasons'. And that may be true. But if that is the case, why did he bother sending his man around to try and get some money out of her? He'd seen a 6-week financial drought out of #13. Why on earth would he expect that to end now? Especially since he had seen Kelly drunk in a pub earlier in the evening. She clearly wasn't working then.

Whatever the case, McCarthy is owed money that Kelly will never be able to pay. How long is he expected to keep this state of affairs going? What is he going to do moving forward? I don't think anyone ever asked him, and I would be curious to hear his answer.

And by the way, in case anyone is interested, no I don't think he killed her to get her out of the bloody room so he could rent it!

[Marlowe]

Chava,

But if McCarthy was under the impression that Kelly had rented her own room to a well-dressed man, wouldn't that be a good enough reason to send Indian Harry around to get whatever money he paid her? Hutchinson's account does sound like a deal was struck regarding the room: Kelly: "come along my dear, you will be comfortable." Man: "You will be alright for what I told you."

[Sam Flynn]

Chava,

I've picked up on the last line of your post and responded to it here. Those who might wish to discuss McCarthy's possible motives are welcome to respond to it, if they wish, on that thread.

[Jeff Leahy]

Thats oK Sam it really has been done to death

[Ben]

But if McCarthy was under the impression that Kelly had rented her own room to a well-dressed man, wouldn't that be a good enough reason to send Indian Harry around to get whatever money he paid her?

Well, here we'd have to assess the likelihood that McCarthy was ever under the impression that "Kelly had rented her room to a well-dressed man", let alone as early as the 9th November. My money would be on "very unlikely indeed", since that suggestion emerged for the first time three days later and was apparently discarded as having little value shortly thereafter.

I doubt any "deal" was struck. Firstly, "you'll be alright for what I've told you" had been mysteriously forgotten about when it came to the press version of that account, and "You will be comforable" was alleged to have been heard from a distance spanning the corner of Dorset Street to the entrance to Miller's Court. She must have boomed those words mightly loudly.

[Chava]

Chava,

But if McCarthy was under the impression that Kelly had rented her own room to a well-dressed man, wouldn't that be a good enough reason to send Indian Harry around to get whatever money he paid her? Hutchinson's account does sound like a deal was struck regarding the room: Kelly: "come along my dear, you will be comfortable." Man: "You will be alright for what I told you."

But do you think that exchange (if it happened at all, and in fact I don't think it happened) has to do with renting a room? It seems awfully sudden if it is. To me it sounds more like Mr Astrakhan was renting Mary! However, even if he is planning to move in, how does McCarthy know about this? The exchange takes place at 2.10 am. Is McCarthy still onsite in his store? I don't know if he would see someone entering the court if he were.

Nothing in McCarthy's behaviour alerted the police at the time. I've often said that he's not my main candidate for the Ripper. But the unpaid back-rent has never been explained to me in any way that made sense. Many Ripper-writers believe his account that she was down on her luck so he was sorry for her. Others think he was grooming her to work as a prostitute for him. I don't believe either explanation but I have no better idea to put forward. The issue of the back-rent owed will always be a huge question-mark for me. It's why he is the only 'named' person in the case that I believe might have killed Kelly. But why he did it, if he did it, is beyond me. If he killed her, was he the Ripper? It doesn't seem possible.

And yet...

[Sam Flynn]

Thats oK Sam it really has been done to death

Sadly, there are far fewer posts on the Suspects/McCarthy thread than there are about him on this single Kelly thread.

[Marlowe]

Chava,

Well, we know that McCarthy said that Kelly was seen with a very well-dressed man earlier in the night. Isn't it possible that they made some tentative plans for him to use the room, after which he leaves the pub and then returns, later that night? Hutch may not be telling the whole truth, but his account sounds like they were deal making over the room. According to the East London Observer, November 10, it reported: "that some payment was made by the man for the use of the room."

There are many details that are wrong in that article, so that part might be wrong too, but it does fit Hutchinson's version, even if we assume he was guilty of something. I'm just trying to put the two together somehow . Also, being a slumlord with prostitutes as tenants, we know that McCarthy couldn't have told the whole truth about everything anyway, so maybe he knew more about the deal, if she did make one. However, I do think he was involved somewhere. But then again, I am a proud Conspriracy Theorist ;-)

Tell me what it is about the un-paid rent that is most troubling to you.


Heading to work now Chava-- will talk later. thanks.
Marlowe

Hey Ben, Im "shocked", "Shocked!" to see you here ;-)

[Chava]

I don't assume that Hutchinson was guilty of anything except perhaps peddling a story for fun and possibly profit. I'm distrustful of him because of his overly-detailed description of the man who picked up Kelly. Also I don't believe she's drunk, loud and (somewhat) disorderly at 1.00 am and quiet as a mouse a half-hour later.

The point about the well-dressed man is well-taken. However the timing suggests to me that could have been Blotchy Face.

The rent bothers me because I've never seen an explanation that was at all convincing. I suspect McCarthy had a tough way with delinquent tenants. He seems to have been going unusually easy on Kelly!

[Ben]

Hi Marlowe,

Well, we know that McCarthy said that Kelly was seen with a very well-dressed man earlier in the night.

McCarthy's observations were based on hearsay as you note, most probably from Thomas Bowyer whose sighting did not occur earlier that night, but apparently a couple of days prior to the 9th. In any event, neither man mentioned anything about Kelly being seen with a well-dressed man at the inquest, and nor did anyone else. I'd be wary of any "interesting" details that appeared in the newspapers around the 10th November, but didn't end up being mentioned at the inquest on the 12th, as it's usually a sure indication that the more basless claims had been filtered out by the latter date.

I'd also urge caution with using any press snippet that appeared in the press before the inquest to lend weight to Hutchinson's account. Anything that appeared in the East London Observer on 10th, for example, would have been very much in the public domain, and Hutchinson could have "used" any details therein to lend credence to his own version of events. There can only be "corroboration" between sources if neither one was capable of learning of the other beforehand.

I don't assume that Hutchinson was guilty of anything except perhaps peddling a story for fun and possibly profit.

Hi Chava -- A bizarre twist of fate, then, that the story he peddled for fun and possibly profit just happened to fit the circumstances of a real person who was really at the crime scene virtually to a tee, right down to the "watching and waiting for someone".

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi ,
Regarding the rent arrears, I can only repeat McCarthys version, on the day of the murder to the 'Times'.
'She came to live with a man called Kelly, a porter, and as she often posed as his wife became known as Mary Jane[ as the court residents knew her] Kelly.
That is a very clear statement, and it gives the impression[at least to me] that the first tenent in the property was this man known to McCarthy as Kelly, [alias Barnett].
That being the case , and this person being in employment would have been responsible for any rent payment, and Marys presence was simply a case of shacking up.
It therefore would still have been his responsibility right up to , and even beyond the 30th October, to pay the rent, and any arrears.
Therefore McCarthys reluctance to evict Mjk, was proberly three fold.
a] Trusting Barnett[ alias Kelly] to pay off the rent, knowing that he was very fond of Mary, and would not have wanted her evicted[ a type of emotional blackmail]
b]Aware of the killers presence in the area, and a reluctance to release this woman onto the streets in the circumstances.
c]He generally felt sorry for her, and was giving her every chance to sort out the predicament she was in.
Also .
As mentioned before, why are we assuming that on the morning of the discovery, Bowyer was sent for the rent, when his wife and son were at that time doing just that in the court, with the other residents.?
A press report stated that as friends of hers [Kelly] were anxious that she did answer their knocks[ Pickert for one], they reported that to the landlord, and it was primarily that reason that Bowyer called on the room,although he never stated that.
Mayby he raised the arrears issue, as he did not want to appear a 'soft touch' to the other dwellers of that hovel.
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

Although I wouldn't necessarily agree with all your suggestions, that was a balanced and insightful post, Richard. Thanks.

[Chava]

Richard, how do we know that McCarthy's wife and son were collecting rents at that time in the area? I didn't see that. Is it in a press report? If that was the case, why didn't they just visit Kelly as a matter of course?

Also I am under the (perhaps wrong) impression that the room was in Kelly's name. Certainly that's what it says on the victim information board here. In which case, she was on the hook for the rent.

As for the reports that other people were worried about her not answering them, I would be surprised if any of Kelly's friends would have tried to waken her up so early. If she was working as a prostitute she would have been out very late at night and would have been expected to lie in a bit. If she hadn't been on the stroll that night, her friends certainly were. Julia Venturney apart, I imagine they would have been sleeping-in a bit. Also, I haven't seen any press accounts of people trying to wake Kelly up and failing. All the papers I've seen give the same account that McCarthy did--that he sent his man to try and get some rent from her, and that was the first anyone knew that there was anything wrong.

By the way, I just went back and checked The Times report for McCarthy's statement. I am amazed that he managed to look at that carnage long enough to know exactly what had been done to the poor woman. Everything enumerated, and accurate too even with all that blood around obscuring the scene! He must have had an amazingly strong stomach to do that. I don't think I know anyone apart from a policeman or forensics guy who could look at that horrendous sight for long enough to work out exactly what had been done!

[Sam Flynn]

I've picked up on the last line of your post and responded to it here. Those who might wish to discuss McCarthy's possible motives are welcome to respond to it, if they wish, on that thread.

It seems that they don't, Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

It seems that they don't, Sam.

Indeed, Sam - thanks for the support.