| Author |
Message |
    
Philippe Guzman
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 3:44 pm: |       |
Hello, this is my first post here. I hope I am doing this correctly. I see no other messages here right now???
I had read an article many years past about Joseph McCarthy being a suspect in the Ripper murders but I can find no information on him on this site. Is he still suspected? |
John Savage
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 8:08 pm: | |
Phillipe
I don't recall a suspect of this name, are you thinking of John McCarthy who was Mary Kelly's landlord at 13 Millers Court?
If so there was some debate about him a few weeks ago on the old message boards, which have now been deleted, and are only avialable to purchase on CD.
However if you are looking for info on John McCarthy you may find some on the dissertations page. |
Stephen P. Ryder
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 8:26 pm: | |
Hi Philippe -
Welcome to the Casebook! More information on John (not Joseph) McCarthy is available at:
http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-mkb.html
All the best,
Stephen |
R.J. Palmer
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 10:42 pm: | |
There was also another John McCarthy who received a little local notoriety by appearing in the Police columns in the London Times in mid November, 1888, shortly after the Kelly murder. It was a rather interesting incident.
John M'Carthy, 28, was charged with being concerned in assaulting and robbing Michael Hadsburg, of 3, Well-street, Whitechapel. Prosecutor said on Thursday evening he went into a publichouse and had some drink, when he saw the prisoner, who said to him "Are you 'Jack the Ripper?'" He replied he was. Witness had some more drink, when prisoner suddenly caught hold of him and held him. Four or five other men then commenced knocking him about, and robbed him of 5s. which he had in his trousers pocket. All the men ran away and witness called for the police. The men were taking him to the police-station when they robbed him and they then ran away. Constable 434 H said while in Leman-street he heard cries of "Police." He saw a crowd running. Prosecutor complained of being robbed and kicked by five men. Prisoner said prosecutor came into the house and said something about "Jack the Ripper." I said "I believe he is 'Jack the Ripper,' and am a good mind to give him into custody." I then caught hold of him to give him into custody, as he was such a suspicious looking man, when he called out "police." Prosecutor recalled, said when prisoner asked him if he was "Jack the Ripper," he also looked round him and said "Have you got any revolver?" Prisoner denied assaulting and robbing prosecutor and called a witness. The latter, a man named Murphy, said prosecutor was dancing about in the house, saying he was "Jack the Ripper." He also commenced writing and had a lot of Yankee notions about him, and that caused a crowd to get round him. Prisoner did not take hold of prosecutor. Mr. Lushington committed the prisoner for trial.
This shows a little of the strange atmosphere around Whitechapel during the murders. I wonder whether it may be true that the Whitechapel murders increased class tensions, and whether the locals used 'the scare' as an excuse to rough-up 'toffs?" The bit about 'he commenced writing' is rather interesting. Cheers, RJP |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 790
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 7:30 am: | |
Hi,
I know this an old thread but I just wanted to say something after reading through that dissertation above.
This is probably ridiculous and I'm not thinking about it too seriously but what if Mary McCarthy, John's wife was actually Mary Kelly. Is this possible in any way? If it can be proved by way of census entries or something she wasn't then that's fine.
Just a question.
Sarah |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 95
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 3:24 pm: | |
Hello Sarah,
During the 5 years research we put in before co-writing our book we delved into the Irish records and discovered information others had missed. We found a Mary Kelly born Limerick 1864 to a John and Ann Kelly nee McCarthy. We believe that Ann was possibly John McCarthy's sister. Ann also had a brother Thomas as did John.Therefore Mary would be his niece. This would answer the long debate on why she was allowed to run up 6 weeks rent arrears. The McCarthy clan had a strong presence in Dorset Street and surrounding area. We later discovered that in 1891 just 3 years after the murders a Thomas Kelly living in 13, Millers Court the very room where the murder was committed. Could this have been the other brother?
A&S |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 362
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 3:59 pm: | |
TThanks for that Sue and Andy.I have often thought They might all be related and its beginning to look like they were.On the other hand John didnt exactly help Mary to keep secure
by repairing the window when he knew the ripper had struck several times nearby.
Best Natalie |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 733
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 4:22 pm: | |
Hi Andy /sue,
intresting , but can one imagine a relative of the deseased , killed in such horrific manner, living in that very room.
Surely not.
I would gladly spent a night in the chamber of horrors, even two nights, then spend an hour of darkness in that horrific location.
Richard. |
Greg Hutton
Police Constable
Username: Greg
Post Number: 4
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 4:57 pm: | |
Hi all,
I have thought there was a family link between John and Mary, half brother and sister perhaps. Only thing that bothered me was why didn't he say anything at the inquest? Did J.M. recieve letters on behalf of Mary from her family or did I make that up?
Regards,
Greg |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 96
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 5:56 am: | |
Hi All,
We were very lucky in having a contact within the Irish Records in Dublin. The Irish records are notorious for the way in which they are kept. Nonetheless it seems with the Kelly/McCarthy famlies they are quite clear. Both families were resident in the Castletown area. This had been a problem in the past because Castletown appears in both Limerick and Cork counties. This was explaned to us. Castletown is very near the Cork border.It all depends on who took the records. If the travelling registrar was from Cork he would register the B/M/or Death in that County, they were paid on the number of registrations they made. Typical Irish.
It is not certain that it was Mary Kelly lying on that bed. No satisfactory or positive I.D. was ever made. And why was Thomas Bowyer sent to collect 6 weeks rent arrears, surely a job for the Landlord! Seems very dodgy to us. So a Thomas Kelly would not be living in a room that a close relative was murdered in if it wasn't Mary. John McCarthy's conduct throughout seems very laid back. He stated that Mary Kelly had relatives in Ireland and she had received letters from her mother. But why did no relatives claim her body or even turn up at the funeral? Even in those days the dead were being transported from England to Ireland, Wales & Scotland for burial Etc.
Points more and more to the idea that she was not the person hacked to bits.We also think far too much is placed on the Welsh connection re Mary Kelly, after all it only comes from one source, Joe Barnett, and is very much unproved, so beware.
We must always keep All our options open.
A&S |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 806
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 11:38 am: | |
Andy & Sue,
I agree with you about the evidence to show that the body may not have been Mary's.
Her being John's niece would account for the fact that he knew about the letters from her mother. It's just that I thought it strange that Mary would tell her landlord about letters from her mother.
Maybe he didin't mention his connection to Mary because he helped her escape. I don't know, just a thought that popped into my head as I was reading your last post.
Sarah |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 97
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 2:42 pm: | |
Hello Sarah,
That's the whole point. John McCarthy would want to know any news about the family back in Ireland, hence knowing about the letters. Also the room that Mary stayed was sectioned off with a partition as if he had done it especially for her. Think about the other victims and unfortunates who lived a day to day existence in the streets of Whitechapel, not for them the luxury of a room to themselves.
Throughout our book we have tried to put the victims and the other women's terrible conditions they suffered at the time. Too many other authors have just cast aside these women as if their lives were just a side issue and didn't matter much. Sue and I saw it much differently with our book. We spent a lot of time with Sister Winefride of the Providence Row Refuge when researching for the book, and talking to her we felt a real empathy for the inmates of 1888 and those at the time. (The refuge has been demolished now except for the facade).We made a contribution from some of the book sales to the refuge and the Dellow Centre in Wentworth Street. Which the Sisters of Mercy also run.
A&S
|
Greg Hutton
Police Constable
Username: Greg
Post Number: 6
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 3:54 pm: | |
Hi Andy and Sue,
it is something that I have been pondering for sometime as I said in a previous post, and I've mentioned it to anyone who would listen to my ramblings here in Swansea a number of times. I agree they were probably related but, if it isn't Mary or whatever her name was, then who was it? someone must have been missed from the time of the murder, were there police files kept of missing persons? Mmmmm probably not!
Regards,
Greg |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 439
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 4:07 pm: | |
Hi Andy & Sue,
Yes a relation between Mary and McCarthy would explain a lot, such as being so far arrears in her rent without being thrown out. Also perhaps it explains how she might be supplied with firewood and other "luxuries." In my mind it also fits in well with sending Bowyer for the rent. Perhaps McCarthy just couldn't bring himself to insist on it personally.
The only thing that still puzzles me is why McCarthy had to break open the door with an axe. One would think that a landlord would have a pass key or know that he could just reach through the window -- especially if the tenant was his relative.
Andy S. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 817
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 4:44 am: | |
Andy,
With regards to him breaking down the door, quite honestly I don't know why he didn't reach through the window. I think there was only one key though which Mary had. He knew the window was broken and he knew the room inside out so he would have known that he could have opened the door through the window so it wouldn't matter if he and Mary were related, he should have known how to open that door anyway.
Sarah |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 98
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 10:14 am: | |
Hi All,
John McCarthy not using a key could have been part of the pretext of not letting on that he was a relation of Mary Kelly, or being familiar with her.
Having a key would not have helped anyway, nor would have opening the door thro' the window.
Whoever left that room last, exited by the window, as a cupboard or wardrobe was dragged against the door on the inside, so using an axe was the obvious way for the Police to gain entry.
And remember it was Lord Mayor's Day, the parade being one of the highlights of the year for East Londoner's. The delay in entering the room could have been that they were waiting for extra Police Officers to arrive on the scene. The Police were stretched to the limit on crowd control. Once the parade was over extra officers were now available.
A&S |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 827
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 11:00 am: | |
Andy & Sue,
Whoever left that room last, exited by the window
How was this possible? I'm sure the break in the window wasn't big enough for a human to fit through. I also wasn't aware that there was something in the way of the door form the inside. If Mary survived, why would she pull something in front of the door and then leave via the window, I don't think she would have. In fact if there was something blocking the door it seems like the killer just vanished then because as I said, the break wasn't big enough for a human.
Sarah |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 377
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 11:05 am: | |
Hi folks,I dont know how old the house was but until a few years ago I lived in a cottage which had the same sort of windows as Millers Court.It was built in 1870 and the sashes were changed quite regularly otherwise you couldnt budge them.
In other wordsthat exit you refer to him making could have been tricky especially at night.They also make quite a bit of noise-unusual clattering type noise and even more when a "sash" is damaged or broken,yet nobody seems to have heard a window going up and down at any point thatI can recall.Is it certain the door could not be used?
Best Natalie. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 442
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 11:09 am: | |
Sarah,
As I see it the two most likely possibilities are (1) that he did not have a key and simply forgot that he could reach through the window and open the lock from the inside or (2) that he wanted to demonstrate to police that he did not have access to the room in order to avoid suspicion.
Andy & Sue,
I have not read your book. Could you tell me the source for you statement that a cupboard or wardrobe? As I recall, the door banged against a table when opened, but this would have prevented it's being opened if unlocked.
Andy S. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 829
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 12:23 pm: | |
Andy,
But I don't think he would have had access to the room anyway as I am sure there was only one key and that was in Mary's posession so his only option was opening the door through the window or breaking it down.
Sarah |
Greg Hutton
Police Constable
Username: Greg
Post Number: 7
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 3:14 pm: | |
Hi all,
does anyone know if the 'partition door' could be opened? Or was it a door fitted as a panel wall. It could have been an escape route, especially if it opened onto a passage used by the other residents of 26 Dorset Street.
Greg |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 834
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 6:10 am: | |
Greg,
I don't know if it opened as her bed was up against it, but then maybe this was to stop anyone coming in from the other side. If it did open it would only have led into 26 Dorset Street.
Sarah |
Chris Michetti
Sergeant
Username: Pl4tinum
Post Number: 41
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 1:59 pm: | |
So how did the killer get out of the room then, if the door was blocked from the inside and the window was too small to escape through?
Chris 
|
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 99
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 2:28 pm: | |
Hello Andy S,
Oops! I was writing from memory. Much of our 'Ripper' research is in the loft. I knew something was up against the inside of the door, it turns out it was a table. This indicates that the killer or killers thought putting something against the door would prevent someone just opening the door and walking in suddenly while at work.
I speculate that the window was used as the way of exiting the room for the reasons above. (There is an illustration in one of the papers of the day, of a man coming out of that very window, so either the police or a very enlightened artist thought he came out that way). There would be no problem with so called 'sticky' sashes. They were 'lubricated' by rubbing the channels or slides with a candle much as they are today. 1888 had been quite a good summer and I would have thought all windows would have been wide open on nearly every property on many occasions that year. No household plug in's, vagrant smelling smoke sticks or personal deodorant sprays! In a small court such as Miller's Court even in November the smells inside and outside must have been terrible. The sound of a window opening or closing would not attract much attention. Even when a witness heard the cry of 'MURDER' they never even went to investigate! Why would they? London was then a 24hr City as it is today, very much a noisy place with shouting going on all the time. Stand in Commercial Street on a Friday night at 2am, you will see what I mean. Pubs were open all night and all day long, only closing for a short time to have a quick clean up and restock with cheap booze. My Gt Gt Gt Uncle Frederick Parlour was Licensee of the Sir Paul Pindar alehouse which was situated where the entrance is now to Liverpool Street Station Bishopsgate. It was pulled down in 1873, and the facade is in the Barbican Museum. My father always said that he was told the 'Pindar' never closed when Uncle Fred owned it. Licensing laws only came into being during the First World War. This was to stop the workers being and getting drunk during work hours and hindering the war effort.
A&S |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 447
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 1:25 am: | |
Andy and/or Sue wrote:
Oops! I was writing from memory. Much of our 'Ripper' research is in the loft. I knew something was up against the inside of the door, it turns out it was a table. This indicates that the killer or killers thought putting something against the door would prevent someone just opening the door and walking in suddenly while at work.
Thanks for correcting yourself. But I don't agree that the mere fact that door banged into a table while being opened implies that the killer purposely put it there. It was a cramped room. I just think the table was in the way. Mary probably knew not to open the door so wide as to bump the table.
As to the killer exiting out the window, I suppose that's possible. I'm not sure what the advantage would be, though.
Do you have an opinion as to why McCarthy did not either use a key or reach through the window rather than breaking the door with his axe?
Andy S.
|
