Could MJK have survived Miller's Court

[andy1867]

Hi Andy,

Mary rented that room, not Barnett, so when she rented it from McCarthy she must have told him how she made her living and intended to pay the rent due. We know that another Unfortunate in the same small courtyard did "street work", and I believe its possible that Elizabeth Prater resorted to some after her man left.

Since the murders many women would have been reluctant to work the streets even if they had to...perhaps the circumstances that Fall warranted some lenience on their situation. How would it look if McCarthy had kicked out the next victim because of money owed?

He was a bit of a slum landlord and amassed a fair bit of wealth, owning a few lodging houses around the East End eventually, and his reputation for being a fair and considerate landlord may have had a play in this situation as well.

We see some Canonicals having to pay in advance each night....Mary wasnt a transient lodger, she rented by the week. Thats why Bowyer was sent "to see" if he could collect "some" rent Saturday morning...not because she was in arrears, because thats the day her rent for the next week would be due. Had he found her alive and still broke he would be sent back again next Saturday morning to try again.

So she was being given weeks...not just days...to catch up.

Cheers

Thanks for the reply Michael...I can see your point...It just struck me as "lenient" for the harsh times they lived in
Regards
andy

[RivkahChaya]

Its not so much Kellys disregard for the rent arrears , as much as McCarthy's that bothers me somewhat...
He seems to have allowed her to rack it up.....and then you read other landlords... or proprietors of lodging houses who...if you don't pay on the day...no bed sort of thing.....it just doesn't seem the norm to me..
Regards
Andy

Which is why I still want to know whether there's any evidence he was trying repeatedly to collect before the murder, or that the amount was fixed and accounted before the murder.

Sherlock Holmes would of course disagree and say that everything must be considered and then as we all know, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truth."

You know that Sherlock Holmes wasn't a real person, right?

I think that police today also adopt a similar approach, ie look at everything then one by one whittle out the rubbish until we are left with the truth. Certainly they often crack murders by eliminating every possible person until the only one left is the killer.

Not exactly. If someone is murdered, the police look at the victim's immediate family and circle of acquaintances, and follow up on witness accounts of suspicious behavior in the area, plus known felons nearby who have committed similar crimes. When they have a plausible suspect, and some sort of objective evidence, their lieutenant doesn't say "What about the victim's grandmother?" and the detectives answer "She lives two states away, and we have no reason to believe she was in the area at the time." The lieutenant doesn't tell them to check all airlines and trains, and the victim's grandmother's credit cards, or verify the exact whereabouts of every single person in the city at the time of the murder, give or take two hours. That would be a waste of time. They don't make sure the governor of the state has an alibi, just in case some nut with a blog decides to come up with a conspiracy theory to attract readers.

The police have only so much time, and they have to use it wisely.

[DVV]

Did she really venture out at 2.00 ?
Nein !

[Tecs]

You know that Sherlock Holmes wasn't a real person, right?

One of the problems with the internet is that you often can't gauge the timbre of a comment so I don't know if you are attempting to be sarcastic or informative, but for the record, yes, I am well aware that SH is a fictional creation.

But, "he" has still contributed towards our society in such a way that we do have words such as "Holmesian" and "Holmseian deductions" and the fact that Holmes never existed doesn't affect the question of how he would approach a problem. Saying he's not real doesn't change the situation at all.

regards,

[Tecs]

Not exactly. If someone is murdered, the police look at the victim's immediate family and circle of acquaintances, and follow up on witness accounts of suspicious behavior in the area, plus known felons nearby who have committed similar crimes. When they have a plausible suspect, and some sort of objective evidence, their lieutenant doesn't say "What about the victim's grandmother?" and the detectives answer "She lives two states away, and we have no reason to believe she was in the area at the time." The lieutenant doesn't tell them to check all airlines and trains, and the victim's grandmother's credit cards, or verify the exact whereabouts of every single person in the city at the time of the murder, give or take two hours. That would be a waste of time. They don't make sure the governor of the state has an alibi, just in case some nut with a blog decides to come up with a conspiracy theory to attract readers.

The first part of what you say is absolutely correct and of course is the way Police approach a problem. I think the last part about governers is a little off the mark, obviously when police are deducing which line of enquiry is correct they keep within realistic and sensible boundaries.

That's why I've got no time for any nonsense in the MJK murder. But, two witnessess cannot be ignored. If they can, then forget everything Long, Lawende, Schwarz, Smith, Hutchinson etc etc said.

regards,

[Sally]

Its not so much Kellys disregard for the rent arrears , as much as McCarthy's that bothers me somewhat...
He seems to have allowed her to rack it up.....and then you read other landlords... or proprietors of lodging houses who...if you don't pay on the day...no bed sort of thing.....it just doesn't seem the norm to me..
Regards
Andy

Hi Andy

Yeah, it does seem a bit weird - at first glance. I think we should remember two things: McCarthy was a slum landlord with far bigger fish to fry than Kelly - would he have been concerned with an individual's rent arrears, considering that she had the means to earn money? And also that Kelly lived in the Court. Doubtless he saw most of the residents on a daily basis, they patronised his shop - good, reliable business. Perhaps it was better the devil you know and a calculated risk.

[Wickerman]

Did she really venture out at 2.00 ?
Nein !

If we are prepared to accept that Cox returned to the streets through the night, and why, then equally why deny that Kelly would?

[DVV]

Not impossible, I admit. But Hutch's word isn't enough for me.

[RavenDarkendale]

Hi,

Sherlock Holmes would of course disagree and say that everything must be considered and then as we all know, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truth."


"He's the local oddball, it must be him."

"But Sir two witnessess say he was the other side of town when the murder happened."

"Don't care. they must have been mistaken. Got the identity wrong, or the day maybe." Sound familiar....

What would Sherlock say?

"One witness I'd agree with you Lestrade, but two independant people don't get the same thing wrong. No, Mary was alive after the doctors say the body was dead, ergo the body was not Mary. Or She was murdered much later than we think."

Impossible = Maxwell and Lewis correct and Mary dead.

So it all hinges on Maxwell and Lewis's evidence and I would argue that we would need a very good reason to just ignore them because it isn't comfortable.

My ill fitting shoes are still a pair of shoes!

regards

Love it. Hard to think both either got the day wrong or the person wrong. It cannot be proven that Mary did not die in that room, but it does fall into the realm of possibility.

[RavenDarkendale]

Its not so much Kellys disregard for the rent arrears , as much as McCarthy's that bothers me somewhat...
He seems to have allowed her to rack it up.....and then you read other landlords... or proprietors of lodging houses who...if you don't pay on the day...no bed sort of thing.....it just doesn't seem the norm to me..
Regards
Andy

Exactly. It is the landlord allowing MJK to fall behind on the rent, then on the day the body was found, suddenly send someone to collect the rent. Or was it to discover the body?

Interlude: I think the possibility of MJK not being that body is a fair bet.

Now, let's go back to that it WAS MJK. Could McCarthy, tired of waiting for his money and Mary perhaps unwilling to give him tricks in it's place, have murdered MJK himself and sent his toady to collect the rent so someone would discover the body and when he was found in the area, he could prove he had been informed of the crime by Thomas Bowyer . Thus the criminal revisited the scene of the crime without suspicion,

You might say, "Oh, so now you say McCarthy is the Ripper!" Bullfeathers! Perhaps the people who do not believe that there was a "lone knifer" are correct. McCarthy could have killed MJK, perhaps, in any case, she was not a victim of JtR.

I drive you crazy, don't I?

Raven Darkendale

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Dale

You don't drive ME crazy at any event...your scenario's been in the back of my mind since day one...however, we have a minor stumbling block...evidence!

All the best

Dave

[RivkahChaya]

Could McCarthy, tired of waiting for his money and Mary perhaps unwilling to give him tricks in it's place, have murdered MJK himself

For not paying the rent? What sort of motive is that, particularly for a vicious post-murder desecration, when he was perfectly within his rights to evict her.

Unless you are positing some scenario where McCarthy is a pimp, with a large stable of women working for him, and this was a message to all the uncooperative ones-- "Keep working, Ripper or not, because you have more to fear from ME."

I'm going to need something better than "Cool story, Dude," before I consider this. Unless it's the basis of your next novel, in which case, cool story, Dude.

[Wickerman]

That's why I've got no time for any nonsense in the MJK murder. But, two witnessess cannot be ignored. If they can, then forget everything Long, Lawende, Schwarz, Smith, Hutchinson etc etc said.

regards,

With no direct indications to the contrary we must accept witness statements as given in good faith, as the police did at the time. Only when we have direct contrary evidence, or conflicting statements should we question the source.
Resorting, as some do, to calling certain witnesses liars, or claiming the witness was invented by the press smacks of desperation.

I'm not sure what you mean by nonsense, but a witness can always make a mistake, especially in cases of judgement. Both Hutchinson and Mrs Kennedy are credited with seeing Mary Kelly out after 2:00 am, and both are dismissed by some who choose not to accept the possibility.

It is far more beneficial to try to rationalise a witnesses claim than to dismiss it because it does not fit with "our" preconceptions.

Regards, Jon S.

[curious]

Hi curious.
Mrs Maxwell had only known Kelly for about 4 months,she had only being in Millers court 9 months.
Of course if she saw Lizzie, it might have been her, who she described as knowing for a short time, if she was referring to the wrong person.
Lizzie was speaking to the press, and was never a police witness, lets face it Kelly did not need a shawl any longer, and she would have,so why mention it.?
It may have even incriminated her , possibly stealing it from Mary's room.
Yes I am suggesting the possibility that the woman killed was indeed the woman wearing the velvet jacket and bonnet, and it was not Kelly.
If one adds up all the events that night, including the man and two women standing in Dorset street, one of them wearing a hat, and respectable,the other not, appearing to attempt, to entice the smarter woman to go somewhere, and takes into account the clothing change which appeared to have happened, and the Times Nov 12TH, which indicates that the jacket and bonnet were burnt because they were bloodstained, one could arrive at a similar scenario,
The crossover that was found in Kelly's room may simply have been a similar to what Maxwell saw.
Regards Richard.

Hi, Richard,
I'm confused by this post and don't understand where you are going with some of this.

Lizzie was speaking to the press, and was never a police witness, lets face it Kelly did not need a shawl any longer, and she would have,so why mention it.?

That's possible.

Let's say Mary was out and traded her black velvet coat and Maria Harvey's hat with someone and brought back a crossover similar to her own . . .


If one adds up all the events that night, including the man and two women standing in Dorset street, one of them wearing a hat, and respectable,the other not, appearing to attempt, to entice the smarter woman to go somewhere,

How does Mary fit into this? and how do you see this fitting into the murder?

How do you get both the black coat and the crossover back into the room?

I'm sorry if I'm being really dense here. I just can't follow all the steps that I think you are taking.

curious

[Michael W Richards]

If we are prepared to accept that Cox returned to the streets through the night, and why, then equally why deny that Kelly would?

Hi Hunter,

Simple. Cox said herself that she went out several times. Mary was seen coming home and she was not seen leaving the room again. That constitutes evidence to suggest Cox was out earning that night, and there is no evidence to suggest Mary ever left her room again. Unless you believe a virtual stranger who says she talked with Mary in the morning. Or a man whose story is discarded days after giving it.

To assume Mary would is your business, but it its hard to understand that a drunk and fed woman at midnight, who had no need for any money that night, would go out in the rain to earn some anyway.

The woman was in arrears, like she had been with other landlords...OBVIOUSLY..she did not take her rent responsibilities seriously.

Cheers