Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

the victims werent prostitutes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    Hi Michael,

    Hope your dad's on the mend.

    Gary
    Thanks Gary

    He’s pretty good to be honest. His main illness is emphysema but he’s been having headaches and disorientation. They’ve done loads of test but so far they can find no reason for them. Expect him home in the next day or two. I’m off to London on Wednesday.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ginger
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post

    They had allegedly lived in Millers Court since March 1888.

    What event occurred to make them stop paying rent six weeks earlier on 5th October 1888 [6 x 4/6d = 27/-]
    Is it established that they'd always paid on time up until a certain date, and then abruptly stopped? Might they not have been slowly falling behind while trying to keep up, as the honest poor do to this day?

    I've wondered as well about McCarthy's figures. He'd not only just lost a tenant, but the room was covered in blood, most of the furnishings (such as they were) presumably had to be replaced, plus he's now trying to rent a room where a heinous murder just occurred. I'd not be horribly shocked to learn that he'd padded the arrears a bit in case a relative of MJK showed up to settle her affairs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ginger
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Simon, as I’d recently been reading about your rebuttal of Stephen Knight’s Conspiracy theory I wondered today if I’m being stalked down the ages in revenge. My dad’s currently in hospital and I noticed this office next to his ward.

    https://ibb.co/fNXYyp
    Best wishes to your dad. If opportunity permits,it might be interesting to chat up Dr. Gull, and see if he's a descendant of Sir William.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Cheers PS
    Hi Michael,

    Hope your dad's on the mend.

    Gary

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by packers stem View Post
    Trust in nurse Packer
    She'll be a wise head 😊
    Best wishes to your dad mate
    Cheers PS

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Mr Barnett,

    It was a bargain because in 1888 a double bed in a common lodging house was eight pence per night [see Annie Chapman]. 8 pence x 7 [no special offer yet found] is four shillings and eightpence. Room 13 was four shillings and sixpence.

    I know nothing about the economics of running a common lodging house. All that matters to us is the end cost to the user.

    Regards,

    Simon
    Why should that matter to us, unless we are wondering whether MJK was getting a better deal than others enjoying the same facilities? I'd assumed you were using the term 'bargain' to mean something attained at less than the market value.
    Last edited by MrBarnett; 10-07-2018, 04:22 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Mr Barnett,

    It was a bargain because in 1888 a double bed in a common lodging house was eight pence per night [see Annie Chapman]. 8 pence x 7 [no special offer yet found] is four shillings and eightpence. Room 13 was four shillings and sixpence.

    I know nothing about the economics of running a common lodging house. All that matters to us is the end cost to the user.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Mr Barnett,

    Please try to locate the article you referenced.

    Regards,

    Simon
    Simon,

    I'll see what I can do, but if 4/6 was the going rate for 1 room off Dorset Street in 1911, why would that have been a 'bargain' in 1888? That's a more direct comparison than calculating a weekly price for a lodging house 'double', surely. Lodging houses required staff: deputies, bed-makers etc who all needed paying. Ultimately they were paid by those who occupied the beds.

    Gary
    Last edited by MrBarnett; 10-07-2018, 03:08 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi c.d.,

    Barnett appears to have been the source of Room 13's income [rent]. He and "Mary Kelly" stopped paying rent on 5th October 1888.

    If Barnett had lost his job at this time, why did "Mary Kelly" wait over three weeks [30th October] before going back on the game and, apparently, from all available reports, didn't earn any money over the next 10 days?

    They were six weeks overdue on 9th November 1888.

    To me, the story smells of BS.

    Regards,

    Simon
    Last edited by Simon Wood; 10-07-2018, 02:41 PM. Reason: spolling mistook

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by c.d. View Post
    "why did McCarthy allow them to continue living there?"
    [Coroner] What rent was paid for this room ? - It was supposed to be 4s 6d a week. Deceased was in arrears 29s. I was to be paid the rent weekly. Arrears are got as best you can.

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert
    replied
    I'm wondering if McCarthy 'ran' some of the other women in the Court. Mary was still young but she'd 'been around' and perhaps McCarthy thought it was worth keeping her on to help manage the women - able to give a shoulder to cry on when occasion demanded, or a hefty swipe if someone got out of line.

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert
    replied
    Oh blimey!

    Leave a comment:


  • packers stem
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Thanks Robert but this is getting way too spooky. On dad’s ward there’s a nurse Packer! I kid you not. If I find out that one of the porters is called Netley or there’s a cleaner called Crook I’m having him moved.
    Trust in nurse Packer
    She'll be a wise head 😊
    Best wishes to your dad mate

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Mr Barnett,

    Please try to locate the article you referenced.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    "why did McCarthy allow them to continue living there?"

    I'm guessing that he felt it was in his best interest. The pool of potential replacement renters most likely consisted of a high percentage of people with a spotty work record and a drinking problem. McCarthy probably felt that Mary and Joe were good for the back rent at some point versus evicting them and taking a chance on someone he didn't know who might leave him high and dry altogether.

    I wouldn't be at all surprised if Mary sometimes offered her services in lieu of rent.

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X