How did Mary conduct her "transactions?"

[Bridewell]

Barnett

Barnett's claimed discomfort at the prospect of sharing 13 Miller's Court with Mary and one or more other prostitutes is (if true) entirely understandable. There's not just the issue of living on immoral earnings in such circumstances. Two prostitutes operating from the same premises constitutes a brothel.

[DRoy]

Barnett's claimed discomfort at the prospect of sharing 13 Miller's Court with Mary and one or more other prostitutes is (if true) entirely understandable. There's not just the issue of living on immoral earnings in such circumstances. Two prostitutes operating from the same premises constitutes a brothel.

Colin,

If you are correct that two prostitutes would make her room a brothel, that really opens up pandora's box in regards to those living/staying in Miller's Court at the time.

If the Court was as littered with unfortunates as the witnesses and press say, surely there was a pimp or gang who would have had control over them? Perhaps the entire court was being run as a brothel?

Cheers
DRoy

[markmorey5]

Pimping is looking at things from a twenty-first Century American perspective, not a nineteenth Century British perspective. No evidence of pimps and I am fairly sure that's a later happening. The numbers of London street prostitutes at the time was somewhere between 8,000 and 80,000; so any common lodging house would have had a number of full-time or part-time prostitutes. As did Millers Court, of course. The real-life character Leather Apron did run some sort of protection racket which made him a suspect, while the injuries inflicted on Emma Smith seem to be gang-related.

Economically women would not have made ends meet on wages at the time, so many women did part-time prostitution. There were as many permutations as prostitutes: widows, wives with sick husbands, daughters with sick fathers, orphaned younger women, women with drinking problems who then had relationshup failures (the majority of the 1888 murder victims). The pick-up seems to be to engage a likely man in conversation and then offer sex for an amount of money. It's rather disorganised by contemporary standards.

The one thing we do not know is what prostitution of the time was really like. All we have to go on are police reports and articles written by men observing the women, but absolutely nothing written by the women. This applies to many aspects of life in the nineteenth century where the female perspective on life, love and more has been completely lost.

[GUT]

G'Day DRoy

If the Court was as littered with unfortunates as the witnesses and press say, surely there was a pimp or gang who would have had control over them? Perhaps the entire court was being run as a brothel?

Perhaps it was with McCarthy in charge.

That may have been why he wasn't worried about any outstanding rent.

That may also have been why his "man" went to room 13 the next morning, to collect the bosses cut of the take.

[DRoy]

Hi Mark and welcome to the boards,

Pimping is looking at things from a twenty-first Century American perspective, not a nineteenth Century British perspective. No evidence of pimps and I am fairly sure that's a later happening. The numbers of London street prostitutes at the time was somewhere between 8,000 and 80,000; so any common lodging house would have had a number of full-time or part-time prostitutes. As did Millers Court, of course. The real-life character Leather Apron did run some sort of protection racket which made him a suspect, while the injuries inflicted on Emma Smith seem to be gang-related.

Pimp is the word I used and maybe that is incorrect. However, there were surely 'third parties' if you prefer that expression. Whether it was a Madam
running a brothel house (or even a Court?), a 'bodyguard', a pimp, or other type of pander...they did exist. Obviously not every prostitute had one but some did which makes it possible someone could have had control over the prostitutes in Miller's Court.

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

G'Day DRoy



Perhaps it was with McCarthy in charge.

That may have been why he wasn't worried about any outstanding rent.

That may also have been why his "man" went to room 13 the next morning, to collect the bosses cut of the take.

GUT,

Possible and has been suggested before. Based on McCarthy's actions, his story and Bowyer's story not jiving it makes you wonder that's for sure. Maybe he was in charge or perhaps protecting someone who was?

Cheers
DRoy

[Cogidubnus]

As a McCarthy (not related I think) descendant

Maybe as the shopkeeper at the head of the passage he was some kind of go-between sometimes...or a full-time pimp...I wouldn't know...but it might help explain the truly significant arrears....

However, if McCarthy was really pimping in any real sense of the word, would he really have put in for a claim...If he had the balls, maybe....difficult...

All the best

Dave

[GUT]

G'Day Dave

Those arrears always worry me. His story just doesn't ring true, there had to be some reason to let them run on so long. IF they existed.

[jason_c]

G'Day Dave

Those arrears always worry me. His story just doesn't ring true, there had to be some reason to let them run on so long. IF they existed.

Couldn't the "arrears" have been run up not only via rent arrears but also through money due McCarthy for the broken window pane? I expect it would be easier for McCarthy to get this money back from the existing tenant rather than a new one.

[GUT]

G'Day Jason

Could be that it relates to the window, but it is always referred to as arrears n rent not damage.

As to recovering from existing tenant, if you mean the cost of the window yes.

But as any business person will tell you you have to cut your losses sometimes.

McCarthy seems like a pretty hard headed businessman interested in getting ahead.

[Bridewell]

G'Day Dave

Those arrears always worry me. His story just doesn't ring true, there had to be some reason to let them run on so long. IF they existed.

The creation of bogus rent arrears could have served to make McCarthy appear a nicer man than he really was; that in turn might have prevented anyone from shining too close a light on his relationship with the women who inhabited Millers Court. The whole thing is entirely speculative but rent arrears of such magnitude were surely most unusual.

[jason_c]

G'Day Jason

Could be that it relates to the window, but it is always referred to as arrears n rent not damage.

As to recovering from existing tenant, if you mean the cost of the window yes.

But as any business person will tell you you have to cut your losses sometimes.

McCarthy seems like a pretty hard headed businessman interested in getting ahead.

Fair enough, I wouldn't disagree with any of that. Im just a bit wary of a tendency to assume McCarthy was some sort of pimp. From what I can tell he was never accused of such. This was a man with enemies. Yet its invariably a slum landlord he was accused of being. There were numerous local groups shouting from the rooftops the ills of the area. As far as I can remember(and I could be wrong) no private letters, police files, newspaper reports or fliers accuse McCarthy of living off the income of prostitution - other than in the form of rent. This is where its a fine line between McCarthy being a pimp and McCarthy having a "don't ask don't tell" policy over prostitution.

There is also the possibility that these arrears were in part what Kelly owed to McCarthy as a shopkeeper as well as landlord.

[jason_c]

The creation of bogus rent arrears could have served to make McCarthy appear a nicer man than he really was; that in turn might have prevented anyone from shining too close a light on his relationship with the women who inhabited Millers Court. The whole thing is entirely speculative but rent arrears of such magnitude were surely most unusual.

It's McCarthy openly admitting to the extent of these arrears that can just as easily form the basis of them being of an innocent nature. He was never asked about the arrears directly, he was only asked how much rent per week was due. The total arrears was information he freely gave without being asked about them. From the reports of the inquest we can tell that such arrears did not cause the coroner to inquire about them further. No eyebrows seem to have been raised by anyone. If the arrears are sinister to us why weren't they sinister to those at the time? Why would McCarthy have pointed the finger at himself in such a public way?

Im playing a bit of Devil's Advocate here. Im in fact open to any possibility in regards to McCarthy's relationship to prostitution.

[c.d.]

I don't see the arrears as being anything significant. I think they were just par for the course. Given the economic status of most Whitechapel residents and especially the hit or miss income of those likely to be renting places such as Miller's Court, being behind in the rent was problem a regular occurrence. Even if McCarthy were to evict those who were behind, he would have to go to the trouble of finding new tenants who most likely would soon be behind in their rent as well. My guess is that he simply believed that he would eventually get paid at some point and that the money he took in from those who were on time with their rent was sufficient enough so that he could let some others go for awhile.

c.d.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I would suggest its a fair bet. that the reason he was lenient with Kelly's rent arrears was his wife's interference ..
Lets be realistic, Mrs McCarthy was very much aware of the killers presence in the area, and would not expect her husband to kick Mary out on the streets..Indeed the day earlier she herself remarked to Kelly.about the killer, and Mary quoted'' He is a concern isn't he''?..
So there we have it..yes the rent was owed, but he was lenient with Mary, for compassionate reasons..
Regards Richard.