Did Jack Mean To Come Back?

[Cogidubnus]

Thanks Bridewell...that's the one I remembered...

[Debra A]

That's a new one on me then. Lynn.

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Debs. Thanks. I was thinking of the one that had a stray and superficial cut (I believe it was explained as being accidentally inflicted).

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Indeed

Didn't I read a thread somewhere suggesting that according to a later census (1891?) a Mary McCarthy, together with a second John McCarthy had moved into Dorset Street?

It was the 1891 census, and not just Dorset Street, but the same address (No.27). Occupants are:

Name Status Age Occupation Place of Birth

John McCarthy Head M 42 General Shop Keeper Spitalfields

Mary " " Wife M 38 - "

George " " Son S 16 - "

Daniel McCarthy Head M 27 Grocer Southwark

Ann " " Wife M 23 - "

John McCarthy Head M 42 Grocer Dieppe, France

Elizabeth " " Wife M 38 - Shoreditch

Margaret " " Daughter S 18 - St George E

Elizabeth " " Daughter S 12 - "

Ann " " Daughter S 6 - Spitalfields

Nelly " " Daughter S 9 months - "

Eliza Alder Domestic S 16 Domestic Servant St Pancras

isa " " Widow 39 " Lambeth

Henry Kempton Head M 30 Printer Marylebone

Amy Kempton Wife M 25 - Herts

John " Son S 7 - Spitalfields

John, Mary & George McCarthy occupied 1 room.

Daniel, Ann, John, Elizabeth, Margaret, Elizabeth, Nelly & the 2 servants occupied 2 rooms.

Henry, Amy & John Kempton occupied 1 room.

According to the Jack the Ripper A-Z it is the John McCarthy born in Dieppe who was the landlord / inquest witness. (I wonder slightly why his is not the first name on the list).

Hope the above is helpful. At least it saves everyone looking it up individually.
(Apologies. I tried to tab this across into a legible tabular form, but it just seems to auto-correct back!)

Regards, Bridewell

[Sally]

Didn't I read a thread somewhere suggesting that according to a later census (1891?) a Mary McCarthy, together with a second John McCarthy had moved into Dorset Street?

I think the information we have on Mary McCarthy and husband John on Breezers Hill is from the 1891 census. There is a John McCarthy in the 1881 census living in School Yard Lane in Ratcliff who might be the same man.

As for McCarthy's in Whitechapel, there seem to have been quite a few - and therein lies the problem in discovering any McCarthy links with other McCarthys.

[Debra A]

Hello Bridewell. It seems the torso murders had minimal damage to the abdomen. But Mary was gutted.

Just another data point to consider.

Cheers.
LC

I once posted the details of the mutilations of Elizabeth Jackson compared to those of Mary Jane Kelly. Some aspects were eerily similar in description.
The Pinchin St torso had superficial abdominal mutilation, but Elizabeth Jackson's abdomen was extensively damaged, with 2 flaps of abdominal skin removed. The torso victims did not just have head and limbs removed.

[Cogidubnus]

Didn't I read a thread somewhere suggesting that according to a later census (1891?) a Mary McCarthy, together with a second John McCarthy had moved into Dorset Street?

[Sally]

Hi Richard, thanks for the reply.

What do you think about Mrs Mary McCarthy of Breezes Hill? She came forward after Kelly's death to say that Kelly had lodged with her before leaving with a man from the building trade - a story repeated by Barnett at the inquest, who said that Kelly had lived at a bad house on Pennington Street before leaving with Fleming.

It's just that I wonder how Mrs McCarthy knew it was Kelly unless she knew her as Kelly? Or unless there was a link between Mary and John McCarthy hitherto undiscovered - which I suppose might explain his leniency with regard to the rent?

There appears to be some corroboration of this part of Kelly's story at least - and it does look from the evidence as if Mary McCarthy was running a brothel in Breezers Hill.

[lynn cates]

abdomen

Hello Bridewell. It seems the torso murders had minimal damage to the abdomen. But Mary was gutted.

Just another data point to consider.

Cheers.
LC

[richardnunweek]

Hello Sally.
According to sources, the court residents knew her only as Mary Jane, the area as Ginger/Black Mary[ the latter two names appear to be her hair colouring , and her wearing dark clothing, black velvet jacket for one].
It was from the Times report Nov 10, that McCarthy states that the victim 'came' to live with a man called ''Kelly'', and as she posed as his wife, became known as Mary Jane..Kelly.
Whether it was just his assumption, or the landlord did not find out that Kelly was Barnett until after her death is not certain, it could well be the case that Barnett initially used Mary's Maiden name when taking residence in the Feb of 1888, a alias[ many] would have been most common amongst east enders of that period.
An alternative is the press report assumed that, as the victims name was Kelly, the man she lived with was of that name, and it was not a direct quote from the landlord , although it is quoted as his words.
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

For McCarthy to be the killer he would have to be such an old softie that he let MJK build up an enormous sum in rent arrears and so ruthless that, once they reached a certain level, he carved her to pieces in the middle of the night. That seems an unlikely combination.

Nicely put, Bridewell.

Barnaby, your post is very intriguing - it would make a good thread.

[Sally]

Hi Richard

It's interesting what you say about Mary Kelly becoming Kelly because she was posing as Barnett's wife.

For this to work, though, we would need to explain how others from her past apparently knew her as Mary Kelly - didn't some people come forward after her death to say that they had known her? I'm a bit hazy here, so correct me if I'm wrong - but Mrs Carthy, for example?

And if Barnett was calling himself Kelly, then why might he be doing that? Of course it's not impossible, but bear in mind that he lived with his apparently common law wife Louisa from shortly after Kelly's death until his own, and appears to have called himself Barnett, as did she.

I'm sure a potential link between Mrs Carthy and Mc Carthy has been postulated before - maybe that's the answer to his leniency?

[richardnunweek]

Hello all.
The whole saga about the owing rent is not such a mystery, up to the 30TH October the rent was down to Barnett, being the only breadwinner, it was only since that date that Mary was responsible for it.
By Barnett's own admission he called on room 13 a few times since he left, so clearly was not too concerned about being seen by McCarthy, which considering he owed him money is strange, by all accounts the landlord was known for his style of getting rid of aggravation.[ Fiona's account].
According to McCarthy the dead woman moved in with a man called Kelly, and posed as his wife thus becoming Mary Kelly, albeit this man was Barnett, and some confusion arose,[ Kelly being her maiden name], he was then working as a fish porter, and was the only breadwinner, thus responsible for the rent, McCarthy would hardly have the room in Mary's name.who had no legitimate means of income.
It would not be a surprise, if the rent arrears up to the 30TH October were wavered either because of some arrangement via the landlord and Barnett[ for services rendered] or out of compassion for the young woman, maybe his wife felt sorry for her, and he allowed her to stop out of concern for safety reasons.
Just a day prior to her death, Mrs McCarthy and her, had a conversation about the Ripper, the former instigating it, and MJK, remarking 'He is a concern', so it is entirely possible that although he would continue to ask for money, he would not turn her out on the streets.
After her death , the rent arrears were mentioned , as he would no longer have to be charitable , and would not want to be seen as a soft touch by the other residents of his properties.
Regards Richard.

[Bridewell]

Thanks

To return to the question originally posed, while I think that it is extremely unlikely Jack intended to return (especially given that the scene appears staged for maximal shock value), it is not completely out of the realm of possibility. And so we should consider its merits. Serial killers do return to the scenes of their body dumps (e.g., Bundy was infamous for this). Moreover, (and another poster mentioned this some pages back) someone is dismembering bodies at the same time as the Ripper murders, and the torso killer probably isn't hacking away in the streets and very well might require multiple trips to and from the murder/dump area. Someone with a knowledge of the facts (and the time) should post how MJKs mutilations were fundamentally different from an "in-progress" Torso murder, so that we can eliminate this possibility.

Hi Barnaby,

This is an excellent post, firstly because I've just realised that I've been party to the hi-jacking of my own thread, and secondly because I'd never considered the possibility of this being a torso murder in progress. I'm not convinced that's what it was, but it's certainly a point worth considering. If this was a torso murder, it was an interrupted one, presumably. (I actually think it was a JtR killing though).

[Bridewell]

For McCarthy to be the killer he would have to be such an old softie that he let MJK build up an enormous sum in rent arrears and so ruthless that, once they reached a certain level, he carved her to pieces in the middle of the night. That seems an unlikely combination.