|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| |
Thread |
Last Poster |
Posts |
Pages |
Last Post |
  | Archive through March 06, 2004 | Andrew Spallek | 25 | 1 | 3-06-04 1:25 am |
| |
 Closed: New threads not accepted on this page |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 100
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 4:04 am: | 
|
Hello Andy S.
Like all theories and ideas we hold different are versions and ideas, that is what makes us all so interested in the case.
I think we all should stand back and look at it as if we are there and not think from a 21st century perspective. The thought patterns were totally different then. Imagine the scene in Millers Court that morning. Police officers everywhere standing about not really knowing what to do. Crowds of people being held back at the entrance from Dorset Street. A scene of chaotic proportions. Then suddenly the order comes to 'Get In The Room', crash bang wallop like a drug raid of today. Except today they are a bit more sophisticated, the police use a 'Door Persuader'. I am writing a piece on the murder of Leon Beron who was bludgeoned to death on Clapham Common on New Years Day 1911. The police officer who discovered the body did everything right. He did not disturb the murder scene, but alas the CID officers descended and destroyed all the forensics and vital clues by trampling all over the area around the body! They wiped out several sets of footprints the discoverer had carefully noted when finding the body amonst other clues. I can imagine much of the same happened that day in Millers Court.
As regard to John McCarthy. We have always held the view he was in some way related to Mary Kelly and only helped the Police in a limited manner. It suited him that he was ordered to break the door down, that way we he could always say he co-operated with the police enquiries. Whether he had a key or could open the door thro' the window is a moot point. I have often wondered whether they used an axe to force entry because they had felt resistance from behind the door. But we will never know for certainty.
A&S |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 450
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 1:19 pm: |
|
Andy and/or Sue:
I can't agree that it's a moot point that McCarthy used an axe to break open the door. It may or may not have great significance, but I don't think it's moot. Consider:
(1) If McCarthy breaks the door, he's going to have to pay for reapairs/replacement.
(2) McCarthy wouldn't have to resist the police or seem uncooperative. All he'd have had to do was say "Well, right guv'nor, but I can just reach in through here and unlock it. Would that do?"
(3) Observers would be able to see it through the window if an object were placed in front of the door so as to obstruct it.
(4) If McCarthy wanted to avoid suspicion (either because we was guilty or because he feared being regarded so) a neat way to do it would be to pretend that he had no access to the room. Breaking the door with an axe would support this.
Now, I realize that in the heat of the moment, McCarthy might have just forgotten that he could reach through the window. But I am still puzzled at why a landlord would not hold a pass key. What did landlords do when their tenants skipped on them without paying the rent and took their keys with them? Break down the door every time this happens?
Andy S. |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 101
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 2:48 pm: |
|
Hello Andy S.
I said in my last post that we should not try and solve anything by thinking in a rational 21st century way. Instead try and put ourselves into that scenario and year. You asked what landlords did when tenants did a runner. Well this wasn't such an easy situation as that was it, there had been a murder. Tensions were pretty high I should think. How do we know that McCarthy knew the window was broken, perhaps he was not aware until Bowyer went to collect the unpaid rent. This itself seems odd. You would have thought McCarthy would have done that, but he didn't this day did he.
Re No 1, A small price to pay to avoid any suspicion of involvement.
Re No 2, Covered this in post.
Re No 3, Perhaps they did look thro' the broken window, saw an obstruction and decided so smash their way in.
Re No 4, It seems we agree.
Why do you think the door was smashed open then?
You raise very valid points, but we will never know what really went on that morning. We can only theorise.
A&S |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 452
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 11:58 pm: |
|
Andy and/or Sue,
As you say, we will never know for sure why the door was broken into by McCarthy. We have some points of disagreement, but the one thing we agree on is that McCarthy neatly avoids suspicion by showing that he has no access to the room (whether or not he actually did have access is in question). Now, it is important to note that desiring to avoid suspicion does not mean that one is guilty, so we should not jump to that conclusion. Nevertheless, we should perhaps spend some time considering McCarthy. For example, it is convenient that Bowyer is the one who actually discovers the body. Another way to avoid suspicion on McCarthy's part?
(For what it's worth, I think McCarthy couldn't have helped but notice the broken window. I also think he likely had a pass key -- undoubtedly renters did the proverbial runner often. Finally, if there was an obstruction blocking the door, the logical course of action would be first to unlock the door and then force it open with one's shoulder rather than breaking it with an axe).
Andy S. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 844
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 4:56 am: |
|
Andy S,
I don't think that he would have been under suspicion for knowing how to open the door through the window as he did own that room and would know it inside out.
I've also mentioned on here a few times and it seems to have gone unnoticed. I'm sure McCarthy didn't have a pass key. I am sure I read once that there was only one key to each room which the tenant had. I don't think that landlord's tended to keep their own keys then.
I may be wrong but I'm sure that is what I read once.
Sarah |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 453
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 9:43 pm: |
|
Hi Sarah,
I don't think the act of opening the door would place McCarthy under suspicion. I think he may have thought he was under suspicion already. I say "may" have thought -- I don't know it for a fact. You see, by breaking his own door he would think he was more or less demonstrating to the police that he couldn't get in the room to kill Mary.
There are two senarios under which this might be true: (1) That McCarthy actually was involved in the crime, or (2) that he was innocent but feared he might be suspected by association. Or, it could be the case that neither of these is true.
As to having a key, you may be right. It just seems contrary to reason to be that a landlord would not keep a pass key but rather be content to break his door down every time a tenant did a runner and departed with the key (I'm sure a common occurance then, as now). If he had enough money to invest in this rental property, surely he had enough to invest in a duplicate key! Anyway, even if he had no key, he could have reached in through the window.
It all may be very innocent, but it doesn't quite ring right with me.
Andy S. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 846
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 10:12 am: |
|
Hi All,
If the table was used by Jack to stop anyone getting in easily, and if he was then able to open the sash window and exit through it, he was presumably able to shut it again from the outside, leaving too small a gap for anyone to push it up and get back in that way.
It would certainly explain why they had to break in, but Joe's positive identification of Mary is harder to explain if it was someone else who was murdered. He would IMHO have known if it was indeed the woman he had lived with until recently. But if it wasn't Mary, I think Joe would either have known this too, or at least have had some niggling doubts about his identification (particularly in view of his knowledge about other women sharing the room), and would have expressed those doubts in the hope that it might not really be her - however much he feared it probably was.
Also, if the murderer thought he was killing Mary when he was actually killing someone else, it would have been pure chance that he left the victim in such a state that she could have been mistaken for Mary, even by her closest associates.
And if the murderer intended to kill someone else, and make everyone believe it was Mary, he took a big risk leaving any features at all that could have given the game away if not entirely consistent with the body being Mary's.
Love,
Caz
|
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 460
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 3:18 pm: |
|
I disagree with the conclusion that a mere table placed in front of the door would have necessitated resorting to an axe! All that would have had to be done would be to reach in through the window and lift the latch while someone leans heavily on the door. Just how heavy was this table anyway. I can easily open a door that has a mere table blocking it (or almost any other piece of furniture for that matter).
Andy S. |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 172
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 3:51 pm: |
|
Caz,
Very good points about the identification of the body. However, if the 20+ years I spent maintaining my mom's 19th century house are any guide the point about the window is not so good. Even if the usual form of lock on those old style windows is in place it is only a matter of seconds to open the window. Of course, if any of the compenents are badly warped you have to take the entire casing out. I would not be surprised if that were the case with those windows as I would suspect they got little or no care.
That said, resorting to an axe to open the door remains puzzling.
Don.
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 885
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 9:52 am: |
|
Caz,
You've got to remember that Joe identified her by glimpsing through the window into the dimly lit room and only looking at her eyes (ears?) and hair. Not much to go on.
Andy S,
I agree with you that the act of opening the door wouldn't have place him under suspicion.
I'm sure I read somewhere that there was only one key but then maybe that meant one key between Mary and Joe.
Sarah |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 866
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 1:37 pm: |
|
Hi Sarah,
That's not really my point. It's more about Joe not wanting that body to be his Mary. If he still cared deeply for her, he would have been more likely to express doubts about his identification, given this opportunity to do so.
If he killed Mary, what better than to express doubts that it was really her, which, if taken seriously, would have undermined any suspicions against himself?
Joe failed to grasp at either straw, and seemed forced to admit that Mary was no longer in the land of the living.
So tell me, if the body was not Mary's, did the killer know it was not Mary, or did he believe it was Mary?
Love,
Caz
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2570
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 11:31 am: |
|
Re McCarthy, this probably wasn't our JM (since McCarthy appeared in the 1901 census) but it may be the one in RJ's post above :
(From the "Times" Sept 19th 1899)
Robert |
Helen Heller
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 9:22 pm: |
|
No, sadly, not our boy. He was still operating his shop in Dorset Street as of the Post Office Directory of 1900.
It's always nice to meet others who are suspicious of Mr McCarthy and his disappearing key! We had him in the frame for a long time because of that key, and I still believe he murdered Kelly. But I'm not convinced he murdered the others. Different choice of victim and location etc. And Mary had owed him quite a bit of money. I always thought she was blackmailing him over something. |
Debra Arif
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 3:15 pm: |
|
Re; Sue and Andy's old post above about the relationship between Kelly and M'Carthy and whether or not it should be believed that Mary Kelly lived in Wales.
Hi
Looking at the M'Carthys ( and variant spellings of the name ) on the 1871 census in London I have noticed that a couple of families have heads of household born in Limerick or cork , whose elder children were born in Wales and later children in London.
Just thought that was interesting!
Debra |
Debra Arif
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 2:24 pm: |
|
Hi
Does anyone know which of the two John M'Carthy's of Dorset Street this was? and has anyone discovered if the two were related yet?
John M'Carthy is implicated further down in the article as one of the main organisers.
It also mentions that the fight organisers had a pair of India rubber shoes on the table, I am sure I have seen somewhere on the boards that a suspicious man was reported at the time of the murders wearing rubber shoes, can't find it though!
Debra |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 29, 2004 - 5:43 am: |
|
Arthur Harding an early 20th Century criminal, who lived in The Nichol,(shades of the Old Nichol gang) rerferred to John McCarthy in his reminicence, he said.
Dorset St was even worse than Flower and Dean St, we used to call it the street, or dossers st. There were Doss houses on one side, furnished rooms on the other,
McCarthy owned all the rooms down there. He was an Irishman a bully, he knew Marie Lloyd because there was a pub round the corner where she used to go to.
All his daughters were in show buissines on account of his knowing Marie Lloyd. McCarthy had plenty of money but still lived down there. |
RobertJStevens
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 7:34 pm: |
|
I'm only a year too late to get in on this, but doesn't anyone find it odd that Kelly went to McCarthy's store the day before her murder and bought a half penny candle from him even though she owed him money? And then, coincidentally, the morning of her murder, McCarthy sends his "henchman" to her place to collect? Why did he not collect when she came into his store? I think the natural thing for him to do, since she owed him so much money, would have been to keep the payment for the candle, but NOT GIVE HER THE CANDLE!
It simply makes no sense. |
Greg Hutton
Sergeant
Username: Greg
Post Number: 45
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 2:09 pm: |
|
I've tried looking for this article on this site so that I don't reproduce it but it appears John McCarthy liked the attention of the press long after incidents of 1888.
I found this on the www.victorianlondon.org website. If you haven't yet seen this excellent site, take a look it's full of interesting items like this.
. One night an inspector of police woke fifty of these men in McCarthy’s lodging-house on Dorset Street, off the Commercial Road, to exhibit them, and I felt as though I had walked into a cage with the keeper. They lay on strips of canvas naked to the waist, for it was a warm, close night, and as the ray from the policeman’s lantern slid from cot to cot, it showed the sunken chests and ribs of some half-starved wrecks of the wharves, or the broad torso of a ‘‘docker,” or a sailor’s hairy breast marked with tattooing, and the throats of two men scarred with long dull red lines where some one had drawn a knife, and some of them tossed and woke cursing and muttering, and then rested on their elbows, cowering before the officers and blinking at the light, or sat erect and glared at them defiantly, and hailed them with drunken bravado.
“The beds seem comfortable,” I said to McCarthy, by way of being civil.
“Oh, yes, sir,” he answered, “comfor’ble enough, only it ain’t proper, after paying twopence for your bed, to ‘ave a policeman a-waking you up with a lamp in your face. It ‘urts the ‘ouse, that’s wot it does.” He added, gloomily, “It droives away trade.”
Harpers New Monhtly Magazine, January 1894
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2298
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 6:40 am: |
|
Hi Greg
So there you are!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wonderful find there! and WHAT an image!!!
Love the.............'He added gloomily' line! 
Suzix |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 920
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 10:08 am: |
|
I came across this in The Times. In 1882 John McCarthy was arrested for participating in an illegal prize fight in St. Andrew's Hall, which had formerly been also used as a church.
Times
29 March 1882
AN ALLEGED PRIZE FIGHT.
__________
Yesterday, at the Bow-street Police-court, before Mr. Vaughan, a man named Henry Goodson, a carman, living in Brick-lane, Spitalfields, was charged with committing a breach of the peace, and being one of the principals in a prize fight at St. Andrew’s-hall, Tavistock-place. Aaron Moss, aged 48, of Corbet’s-court, Andrew-street, Spitalfields, fishmonger; William Scoll, aged 22, 17, Lisbon-street, Cambridge-heath-road, fishmonger; John Satchell, Brick-lane, Spitalfields, beerhouse keeper; John M’Carthy, 27, Dorset-street, Spitalfields, shopkeeper; Thomas Moss, 2, New-street, Union-street, Lambeth, bricklayer; Joseph Lilly, 76, Moneyer-street, Hoxton, general dealer; Thomas Davis, Luke-street, Mile-end, gas stoker; George Lewis, Vanston-place, coalham-green, carpenter; and R. Smith, Flower and Dean-street, Spitalfields, general dealer, were charged with aiding and abetting and taking part in the fight. Smith was further charged with assaulting the police; and George Stevens, of John’s-place, Whitechapel, a blacksmith, was also charged with assaulting a police-constable.
Mr. Superintendent Thomson, on behalf of the police, stated that it was only proposed at present to offer sufficient evidence to justify a remand.
The first witness called was the constable who charged Stevens with assaulting him by striking him on the mouth while he was endeavouring to disperse the crowd assembled outside the hall. The defendant declared his innocence, and was remanded, to give him an opportunity of calling witnesses on his behalf.
Inspector Arscott, of the Hunter-street Police-station, then deposed that at about 3 o’clock on Monday afternoon he received an intimation that a prize fight was about to take place at the hall, which was formerly used by Archdeacon Dunbar as a church. Witness secured the assistance of two plain-clothes officers—Sergeant Rowan and Detective Scandrell, and proceeded to the place in question. He encountered at the door a man who gave the name of John George Elliott, of 14, Finsbury-square, and stated that he had “hired the hall for a few amateur gentlemen to have a sparring match.” This man was admitting persons through a turnstile. Witness and his companion, passing through, saw a large number of persons assembled in the hall. Two men entered a ring formed in the centre of the hall by means of ropes and stakes. A carpet was lying on the ground. The two men who entered the ring first were not arrested with the others. They sparred in the ring for some little time, and then gave place to two other men. The latter, who were also stripped, sparred with boxing-gloves on. After they had finished, the prisoner Goodson and another man (not in custody) entered the ring. They fought with gloves of a lighter kind than those used by the other men. Goodson knocked down his antagonist, who was unable to get up again for a second or more. He, however, rose and fought again. He was again knocked down, Goodson still striking him as he feel across the rope.
Mr. VAUGHAN.—What, while he was down?
Witness said that the man was struck while across the rope and also kicked by Goodson. The bystanders struck both men with sticks. Witness entered the ring and said, “This must not be allowed; stop the fight.” Immediately there was a general rush for the door. The defendants, however, were secured, and all, with the exception of Lewis, were identified as having been present when the fight was proceeding. They encouraged Goodson with cries of “Go it, ‘Sugar!’”—a name by which he was known. Moss was acting as his second, and in the ring there was a small basket containing ice, some spirits in a bottle, jars containing water, zinc pails, and several sponges. There were some slight traces of blood on Goodson’s face.
In cross-examination by Mr. Armstrong, on behalf of Goodson, witness said he saw one pair of gloves on the hands of the parties, but the gloves produced were not those worn by Goodson. He had a thin pair, which were not padded. Witness heard nothing about the Queensberry rules. Goodson kicked the other man in a most brutal way.
In cross-examination by Mr. Clark, on behalf of M’Carthy and Satchell, it was stated htat there were about 200 persons in the room, and witness expressed his belief that all the persons present were mixed up in the affair. He thought that the first couples had sparred fairly, but that Goodson and his opponent did not use fair gloves.
Detective-sergeant Rowan deposed to having accompanied the last witness to the scene of the fight. He saw M’Carthy and Lewis standing first outside the turnstile. He asked what was going on. He was told that it was a sparring match, and that the admission was one guinea. M’Carthy asked whether he had a guinea, and upon receiving a reply in the negative, he made us of an oath and told him to get outside. After some difficulty, he was admitted by Elliott. The ring was formed in the body of the hall, towards the chancel. Many persons were in the body of the hall, and in the place where the Communion table once stood were a number of raised seats. Witness walked to a room adjoining the chancel, where he found Goodson, Moss, Scott, and other men. On a table were sponges, towels, ice, bottles of spirits, and some india-rubber shoes. After examining these articles, witness returned to the chancel. By that time Goodson and his opponent had entered the ring. Each had two seconds. Bets were made by the spectators on the raised seats, the sums ranging from £2 to £20. The defendants could hear the bets made. Witness then described the way in which the other man was knocked down and treated by Goodson. He further stated that both men kicked each other. They put down their hands when the officers entered the ring and called upon them to stop. M’Carthy said, “Never mind the police, fight it out.” The mob made a rush to the door, and all of them, with the exception of the prisoners, succeeded in getting out. Witness described the gloves worn by Goodson as being thinner than ordinary boxing gloves. He added that a person who acted as referee read some rules before the fight commenced and held up a cup, which he said was to be fought for in addition to so much per side. Witness did not hear what the amount was. One of the rules was that when either of the combatants was down the seconds should not assist him, under pain of disqualification, and he was allowed ten seconds to rise.
In cross-examination, witness said he remembered only the above rule. He did not hear one providing that if a man were knocked on the ropes in a helpless state with his feet off the ground he should be deemed down. The gloves worn by Goodson and his opponent were taken away in the rush. The cup to be fought for was left at a publichouse in the Euston-road, and handed to the police.
Mr. VAUGHAN here granted a remand, agreeing to accept two sureties in £40 each for the appearance of the defendants, notice of bail to be given to the police.
Mr. Thomas, on behalf of Lewis, submitted that this client was quite innocent of taking any part in the proceedings, as he had merely brought up the turnstile from Walham-green for his employer, Mr. Starke, who had received the order for it from Elliott by telegram now produced.
Mr. VAUGHAN declined to discharge Lewis at present.
Dave
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 921
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 11:30 am: |
|
Apologies for the transcription error: it should read "he (McCarthy) made use of an oath and told him to get outside."
Dave |
John Carey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 9:38 am: |
|
Contributors’ thoughts are invited on this little puzzle:
John McCarthy as we know (Neal Shelden’s posting on the Casebook) is listed in the 1881 census at 27 Dorset street as a British Subject, born France, age 30. There is only one French-born John McCarthy in the 1881 census for England and Wales that I can find.
However, a year earlier the IGI index to the 1880 USA census lists a John A McCarthy age 30, born France: he is listed as single of white race, occupation miner, of an Irish father and a French mother. In 1880 he lived in the house of Robert Howie at Franklin, Greene, Pennsylvania. Reference on the Mormon website is Family History Library Film 1255133 NA Film number T9-1133 page number 207B.
These two couldn’t possibly be one and the same John McCarthy – could they?
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 922
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 10:16 am: |
|
Hi John,
I don't know much about John McCarthy, but I'd hazard a guess that it wasn't until 1881 that he came into the 26 & 27 Dorset street property. There was a notice of sale in The Times, Aug 20 1881. Which is weird, if the 1881 census has him there--wasn't the census taken in April of that year?
Sorry Debra Arif, I see that you must have found the same prizefighting article last year! I'm unable to open that attachment (my machine doesn't recognize .unk files).
Cheers,
Dave
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1548
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 9:24 pm: |
|
Hi John
Knowing the trickiness of family records and having found on several occasions two or more men with the same name with a wife with the same first names who could not be the same people, I would say that, no, your Pennsylvania McCarthy is probably not the same McCarthy of London's East End.
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
See "Jack--The Musical" by Chris George & Erik Sitbon
The Drama of Jack the Ripper Weekend
Charlotte, NC, September 16-18, 2005
http://www.actorssceneunseen.com/ripper.asp
|
John Carey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 7:03 am: |
|
David and Chris
Thanks for your posts. Yes the 1881 census was held in April, and it is interesting that 27 Dorset Street was placed on the market in August of that year.
I know there are many John McCarthy’s to be found in historical records, but to find two with the same name born in the same year in the same foreign country (France) raises questions. Can we trace McCarthy the Pennsylvania miner forward in time and either confirm or rule him out as the man who lived at 27 Dorset street a year later? If he continued to live in America after 1880 I would reasonably expect to find him in the IGI individual record which would give his exact place and dates of birth and death. Conversely, is there a record of his applying for British citizenship which would give his dates and places of birth and death? I have looked at the IGI but cannot find an individual record for a John McCarthy born in France, only the census for 1880. So what became of him after 1880?
Tracing forward in time is the key here. By this method, I have been able to show that many women named Mary Kelly that have been found in the 1881 census for England and Wales can be eliminated as the one who was at Miller’s Court in 1888.
Best wishes
John
|
Mark McGlone
Police Constable
Username: Kidtwist
Post Number: 8
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 11:19 am: |
|
Just curious, but does anyone know when Millers Court was built? |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 950
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 11:37 am: |
|
Hi Mark,
You might be interested in Viper's (Adrian Phyper) dissertation, The Whitechapel Dossier: Dorset Street and Miller's Court.
Cheers,
Dave |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 1:45 pm: |
|
Robert,
Hi. I think there is a logical answer to your question. Mary didn't have the money for her rent when she went to purchase the candle but told McCarthy that she had customers scheduled for that evening (the Blotchy Faced Man and the man Hutchinson described) and that she would have the rent money the next day. |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 4:23 pm: |
|
Dunno if this is our John as he appears a little old at 41. However, whilst looking up the Martha Bodger murder (see separate thread "Murder in the LVP" on the General Discussion board) I noticed that, immediately preceding it in the Times Court Notices of 13th October 1887 was this little gem:
Nasty piece of work, wasn't he? Can't find out what happened later though, although I suspect that *this* John M'Carthy didn't get to see much daylight in 1888, still less remain at liberty to run a lodging-house "empire".
I also found another 1887 entry for a sailor called John M'Carthy stabbing a policeman in the face when caught robbing a house in Kensington. Neither age nor address was given for this one.
Perhaps the name was cursed?
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
John M'Carthy