the victims werent prostitutes

[Robert]

Hi Michael

I hope your dad is soon on the mend.

If you take him some grapes, keep an eye on them.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Herlock,

Barnett original witness statement—

"I have lived with her altogether about 18 months, for the last eight months in Millers Court, until last Tuesday week (30 ulto) when in consequence of not earning sufficient money to give her and her resorting to prostitution, I resolved on leaving her."

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/-], and why did McCarthy allow them to continue living there?

By the way, their rent was something of a bargain at twopence less per week than a double bed in a registered common lodging house.

Regards,

Simon

I'm sure I read somewhere that if you spent a week in a lodging house you got one night free? Which would make the room actually dearer than a week's stay in a lodging house, plus you had to supply your own coal and launder your own bedding. 😉

In 1911, a man named Thomas King made rather a hash of his census form and unnecessarily included the rent for his single room in 11, Paternoster Row - it was 4/6 per week. So 13, Miller's Court doesn't seem to have been too much of a bargain.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Best regards to your Dad for a speedy recovery.

Please tell him he's got nothing to fear from Dr. Gull, either in 1888 or now.

Regards,

Simon

Thanks Simon

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Michael

I hope your dad is soon on the mend.

If you take him some grapes, keep an eye on them.

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.

[c.d.]

"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.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mr Barnett,

Please try to locate the article you referenced.

Regards,

Simon

[packers stem]

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

[Robert]

Oh blimey!

[Robert]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

"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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Simon Wood]

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

[MrBarnett]

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

[Simon Wood]

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

[MrBarnett]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Trust in nurse Packer
She'll be a wise head 😊
Best wishes to your dad mate

Cheers PS