The burnt clothing

[Archaic]

Comparing the 1881 & 1891 McCarthy Census Data

Hi folks. I was just comparing the 1881 and 1891 McCarthy census returns, and they don't quite match up.

Phil posted:

1881 Census-
John MC CARTHY Head M Male 30 born (British Subject), France General Dealer
Elizabeth MC CARTHY Wife M Female 29 born Spitalfields
John MC CARTHY Son Male 7 born Spitalfields Scholar
(plus daughters, etc)
Dwelling 27 Dorset St


And Wickerman posted:

1891 Census-
27 Dorset St.
John McCarthy, Head, 42, General Shop Keeper, Born: Spitalfields.
Mary McCarthy, Wife, 36 or 38, Born: Spitalfields.
George McCarthy, Son, Single, 16.


> So the 30 yr old John McCarthy in Phil's 1881 census data ought to be 40 years old in 1891. But the John McCarthy in Wickerman's 1891 census is 42 years old.
The 1881 J.M. was born in France, the 1892 J.M. in Spitalfields.

According to the 1881 census, John McCarthy's wife's name is named 'Elizabeth', but the 1891 census lists her as 'Mary'. (Of course she may have died and he may have remarried, but there are other significant discrepancies.)

The 1881 John McCarthy had a son named after him, 'John', but the son with a different mother named who is listed in the 1891 census is named 'George'. And whereas young John McCarthy should be 14 in 1891, the young George McCarthy is 16.

The 1881 McCarthy family had several young daughters and some others listed; the 1891 family does not.

It would appear that these 2 sets of McCarthys might be two different families...possibly cousins or something, but two different households composed of different individuals.

I'm no expert on the McCarthy family, but I'm sure that other Casebook members are, and maybe some of you would be so kind as to clarify these discrepancies for us?

(And perhaps we should move this subject to a new thread as it's straying off topic for a thread titled 'Burnt Clothing'.)

Thanks and best regards,
Archaic

PS: I forgot to mention that the last family Wickerman mentioned in his 1891 census data family matched the 1881 census family better, but had no son listed at all. As young John would still have been only 17, does this mean it's the right family and he left home very young?

[Phil Carter]

Hi Archaic,

Just a quick reply before shut eye time. The census age thing in the British census records is a chapter by itself. Rough estimates were given by so many, only from the first census 1841 right up until 1861 I believe, some people rounded up their age, or down, to the nearest 5 or 0. After that it was estimated in many cases, because of a lack of people actually not knowing due to lack of owning a birth certificate, and not seeing parish records either. So few people (relatively speaking) could read anyway in the early days. It carried on with names too, and the variations in names is as widespread and varied as you can get.
There is a website somewhere explaining all of the anomolies.
Also, I believe Chris Scott's book looks into the two different family issue.
The two McCarthy's that are the same are the J M born in France, British Citizen (1881), and JM born in Dieppe(1891). Both have the same wives.

Back to the thread.

best wishes

Phil

PS... Researching my own family history was a nightmare because of the above. It wasn't until I did it that I found my Gran was one of 9 children.
This shocked my Uncle, who only knew of 5. 4 died before the age of 4 years old. Nobody ever mentioned it, it was imagined by the parents in such cases as being looked upon that they were guilty of "bad parenting", therefore responsible. There was pride amongst the very poor.

[Wickerman]

Archaic.
Just a point on the stated ages in the 1891 census, each age is overwritten by an "X", for whatever reason. This makes some of them very difficult to read, as with Mary McCarthy, either 36 or 38. Most of the ages I gave are best guess due to the overlaying scribble.
I tried to post an actual facsimile so you could see the problems involved but it didn't work.

Regards, Jon S.

[DrHopper]

I wonder if Mary Kelly's adventures in France do have a basis in fact?

This suggests a possible theory that I have had floating around my head (and these message boards) for a while - MJK & the McCarthy clan being related, but perhaps only distantly.
It makes sense on a number of levels -
1) MJK 'adventures in France' if she had family living there
2) The reason she was allowed to get so far behind in rent
3) Why Mrs McCarthy knew MJK's relatives and had an address to send her belongings... it may just be me, but i'm not entirely sure of my fiances parents address, let alone some random ne'er-do-well renting a room from me, and it's not like the McCarthys were asking for references!
4) McCarthy being an Irish name suggests possible connections, though realistically this is nothing more than circumstantial evidence, you could throw a stone and hit an Irishman/woman in the poor parts of London - this is nothing in itself.
There is also something else nagging me, but I can't remember what it is... i'll check my idle doodlings and random notes and report back

EDIT!!
5) She sometimes used the name McCarthy.


Has anyone checked the family tree of the McCarthys pre-1880s? MJK may be a cousin, neice, or perhaps married into the family?

And I agree about moving this thread, or at least the latter part of it, to a new thread.

[DrHopper]

Archaic.
Just a point on the stated ages in the 1891 census, each age is overwritten by an "X", for whatever reason. This makes some of them very difficult to read, as with Mary McCarthy, either 36 or 38. Most of the ages I gave are best guess due to the overlaying scribble.
I tried to post an actual facsimile so you could see the problems involved but it didn't work.

Regards, Jon S.

The X, along with many other marks on the original census returns, is usually just the work of some poor clerk tallying the totals and marking the male/female columns... and probably trying to cling on to the will to live as he turns over yet another sheet of badly written paper.

[Archaic]

Ideas For New Threads

Hi folks.

So does everyone agree that we should start a new 'McCarthy Family' thread?

Should it include the idea that has come up that Mary was in some way involved with John McCarthy, either because he was taking a percentage or simply trying to get his late rent paid back, or should that be a separate thread?

Any other suggestions for new threads so this thread can stay on the topic of 'The Burnt Clothing'?

Thanks and best regards,
Archaic

[Wickerman]

Well.......I wondered when this issue was going to raise itself again!

Several years ago, some exceptional geneological work was done on the parentage of Mary Kelly, and I presume it is still ongoing.
However, two lines of parentage appeared to most prominent, whether from Wales or from Ireland. Neither were entirely satisfactory, but in one geneology Mary Kelly's mother's maiden name is given as ...McCarthy!

No-one seems to know why MJK left Cardiff(?) to come to London, but tradition has it she ended up in the West End and for some reason made her way to France.
(Apparently, one John McCarthy was born in Dieppe, so was she visiting relatives?)
Then we read that MJK took lodgings in Breezers Hill, with a lady named Mrs Carthy.
Lastly MJK ends up in Dorset St. renting a room from one John McCarthy....
Are we reading multiple coincidences here, or is there another story waiting to surface?



Sorry for going off topic...again!

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Folks,
With regard to Archaic"s idea for a thread on the McCarthy family,I think that is a really good idea.A snippet that has always fascinated me is this :http://www.casebook.org/victorian_lo...in-london.html
I reckon its the Mr McCarthy Mary owed rent to and if it is one and the same then he was certainly a smart bloke!
Cheers
Norma

[Garry Wroe]

Which would hardly lend itself to making a quick getaway should he be interupted. Such a scenario might suggest the killer was making himself at home with no reason to feel caught as a stranger might should a neighbour come knocking.
The length of time he must have spent in that room might also suggest the same. How did he 'know' he wouldn't be interupted? Or, if someone came knocking, with a roaring fire in the room, why did he feel safe?

Whichever way one looks at it, Jon, the evidence is suggestive of prior knowledge. Personally, I think it unlikely that Blotchy was the killer. More unlikely still is Hutchinson's claim that Kelly was parading about Commercial Street at two o'clock. The most likely scenario to my mind is that the killer entered Kelly's room uninvited and commenced the murder at 3:30 or thereabouts. Thus, as you have suggested, he must have been relatively confident that he wouldn't be disturbed by an unexpected visitor - particularly since the crime scene offered only one means of escape. The implication, therefore, is that the killer specifically targeted Mary Jane a priori and had at least some awareness of her personal circumstances. Try as I might, I see no alternative explanation that fits the evidence.

[Robert]

Hi all

At this rate, the only place a guy can feel safe from interruption when he's carrying out a horrible murder, is in his own home - and then only if he lives alone.

This man was prepared to kill and mutilate while someone next door toddled up the path to the toilet. He was either a risk taker, or someone oblivious to risk. Personally I'd have felt safer in Kelly's room than doing it out in the street.

I think it was indeed someone who entered her room in the middle of the night, but I don't think she was being targeted.

[Garry Wroe]

This man was prepared to kill and mutilate while someone next door toddled up the path to the toilet. He was either a risk taker, or someone oblivious to risk. Personally I'd have felt safer in Kelly's room than doing it out in the street.

On the contrary, Robert. Out on the street the killer would have had ample warning of a stranger’s approach courtesy of the noise made by heavy Victorian boots as they impacted with roads and pavements, making either an escape or a retreat into the shadows a relatively simple process. Kelly’s room, on the other hand, accorded him but one escape route, rendering the venue far more risky than the Buck’s Row or Mitre Square crime scenes. Had anyone entered the room unexpectedly, the game would have been up.

Having said this, the psychopath does not respond to pain or fear as does a ‘normally’ functioning person. Indeed, many psychopathic serialists are known to have thrived on the element of risk that was part and parcel of their offences. Hence it is no accident that the active offender has a tendency to take increasingly greater risks as the series progresses.

I think it was indeed someone who entered her room in the middle of the night, but I don't think she was being targeted.

The problem with this line of thinking though, Robert, is that very few women of Kelly’s ilk lived alone – especially not the younger, more attractive ones. If we therefore dismiss the notion that Mary Jane was targeted in advance, we are confronted with the proposition that the Ripper elected to commit in indoor murder and just happened to chance upon one of the few young and attractive East End women who lived alone. To my way of thinking, the odds against such an outcome would be truly astronomical.

To compound matters, Kelly had been living with Joe Barnett until ten days prior to her death, and Maria Harvey’s side of the bed had barely gone cold. Accordingly, we can either conclude that the Ripper was an individual blessed with an inordinate degree of serendipity, or that he was aware of her domestic situation and targeted her precisely because she lived alone.

I know where my money would be going.

[Wickerman]

... Had anyone entered the room unexpectedly, the game would have been up.

Knowing how these tenents came and went, anyone could have seen a light in Kelly's room and tried the door. Finding it locked? could have reached through the broken window turning back the curtain/coat and gasped, "Oh, murder!".

Astonishing no-one came forward, then again, perhaps this neighbour also recognized the villain, and feared for her life too.
Just conjecture.

...
To compound matters, Kelly had been living with Joe Barnett until ten days prior to her death, and Maria Harvey’s side of the bed had barely gone cold. Accordingly, we can either conclude that the Ripper was an individual blessed with an inordinate degree of serendipity, or that he was aware of her domestic situation and targeted her precisely because she lived alone.

I know where my money would be going.

Absolutely!

Regards, Jon S.

[Abby Normal]

On the contrary, Robert. Out on the street the killer would have had ample warning of a stranger’s approach courtesy of the noise made by heavy Victorian boots as they impacted with roads and pavements, making either an escape or a retreat into the shadows a relatively simple process. Kelly’s room, on the other hand, accorded him but one escape route, rendering the venue far more risky than the Buck’s Row or Mitre Square crime scenes. Had anyone entered the room unexpectedly, the game would have been up.

Having said this, the psychopath does not respond to pain or fear as does a ‘normally’ functioning person. Indeed, many psychopathic serialists are known to have thrived on the element of risk that was part and parcel of their offences. Hence it is no accident that the active offender has a tendency to take increasingly greater risks as the series progresses.


The problem with this line of thinking though, Robert, is that very few women of Kelly’s ilk lived alone – especially not the younger, more attractive ones. If we therefore dismiss the notion that Mary Jane was targeted in advance, we are confronted with the proposition that the Ripper elected to commit in indoor murder and just happened to chance upon one of the few young and attractive East End women who lived alone. To my way of thinking, the odds against such an outcome would be truly astronomical.

To compound matters, Kelly had been living with Joe Barnett until ten days prior to her death, and Maria Harvey’s side of the bed had barely gone cold. Accordingly, we can either conclude that the Ripper was an individual blessed with an inordinate degree of serendipity, or that he was aware of her domestic situation and targeted her precisely because she lived alone.

I know where my money would be going.

Hi Garry

or that he was aware of her domestic situation and targeted her precisely because she lived alone.[/FONT]

I agree. I think the evidence points toward MK being done for the night after Blotchy, so I dont think she went back out. Which means the killer came to her place, so he must have known her.

[Fleetwood Mac]

You could argue this both ways. In my mind, it's just as likely that he felt more secure in someone's home. I'm not sure how often East Enders popped into on another's home at 4 in the morning, although I'd guess not very often.

Plus, it's not much a of a stretch to envisage that JTR made a point of targetting a woman with her own place in order to indulge his desires, particularly if he killed Stride and was disturbed, and was then moments away from being caught with Eddowes.

Seems logical to me that he would have looked for another option i.e. someone's home.

And, it follows that Kelly need not have been known to him, just another prostitute he'd picked up, only this time with a place for privacy.

Perhaps this accounted for the length of time between the double event and the Kelly murder: nearly caught twice could have led to a decision to not kill on the street and he had the patience to wait until he found a woman with her own home.

Plus, if Kelly had a reputation for taking sailors back to her home, then I'm sure it would have been known to the local punters. And perhaps this is what accounts for the increased ferocity - she was known to him as a friend of sorts, he may have liked her but she was the only one he knew with privacy and his urge was getting the better of him - because he liked her, his self-loathing intensified and he took it out on her. I suppose this would put someone like Hutchinson in the frame.

A bit garbled the above; the point being that there are a few options, none of which are particularly any more realistic than the others.

[Robert]

Could it not also be that Kelly was one of the few women who lived behind a homeless shelter which had recently been closed and locked; that it was raining on the night of the 8th - 9th; that Kelly's door could have seemed like a back entrance to the shelter; and that the killer was used to wandering round, ducking into and out of places, and was becoming increasingly disorganized?