| Author |
Message |
    
Neal Shelden
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 3:22 pm: |       |
Paul, I will be very interested to see your evidence about Daniel McCarthy, (brother of John), because one of the details I found out about him for the new booklet was that he married ANN SUSANNAH CROSSINGHAM. She was the daughter of William Crossingham, the lodging house keeper of Dorset Street. And he certainly wasn't short of money when he died. I don't believe that anyone's found that information in the past, but I'd interested if anyone has?
Looking forward to the post Paul!
|
Robert Clack
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 16, 2003 - 9:54 am: | |
Hi Everyone,
I have been reading the posts here for the last couple of days with great interest, so I thought I would add my opinion for what its worth.
I personally don't believe Mary Jane Kelly to be a victim of Jack the Ripper, so if Danny McCarthy did kill her, and thats a big if, I don't think he killed the other women.
My opinion on Jack, and I base this on the location of Mary Ann Nichols murder, is that it was the danger of being caught that motivated him. If you look at the Bucks Row murder site, it's not exactly the place I would take a prostitute (not that I would anyway). Woods Building would be more quiet place to take someone, or even the road by the side of the warehouses, which was not 20 yards from where Nichols was found. So as I said, I think it was the danger of being caught, that motivated Jack and thats why I think the Lusk letter is genuine, and all the other murder sites, there was a real chance of being disturbed, like Elizabeth Stride.
Perhaps a new thread should be started: "Was Mary Jane Kelly a victim of Jack the Ripper?"
One last word about whether or not Caroline Maxwell saw Mary Jane Kelly on the morning of her murder. People seem to forget Caroline Maxwell made a statement to the police on the day of the murder, I don't know the exact time but I would say late afternoon, so for arguments sake lets say about 5 o'clock. So Caroline Maxwell might have as well have said "I last saw Mary Jane about 8 hours ago". Puts a different light on things doesn't it?
best wishes
Rob |
Chris Scott
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 16, 2003 - 4:32 pm: | |
Hi All
Like you all Im fascinated by the Danny McCarthy story. I have looked him up in the 1881 census and sure enough at that time he was living with his broether John at 27 Dorset Street. The census details on him are as follows:
DANIEL MCCARTHY
AGED 19 (AT TIME OF 1881 CENSUS)
BORN: LAMBETH SURREY
SHOPMAN (GENERAL SHOP)
YEAR OF BIRTH 1862
The only possible Daniel McCarthy who would fit in the 1901 Census is listed as aged 39 and living at Newington. His profession is given as dust collector.
I have checked the birth records for Lambeth for 1862 and there was a Daniel Charles James Mccarthy registered in the March quarter of that year.
I havel also cross referred the above from the BMD records for 1862 and this confirms the only Daniel Mccarthy registered in that year in Lambeth was DANIEL CHARLES JAMES so I guess he is probably our man.
I'll let you know if I find out any more
regards
Chris
|
Jack Traisson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 16, 2003 - 8:18 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
You shouldn't find Daniel McCarthy in the 1901 census because he died 29 August 1895. I received the information last year from Viper when I was trying to find out what the McCarthy's interests were in Duval St.(formely Dorset St.) by the time of Kitty Ronan's murder 02 July 1909, at 20 Miller's Court.
By the way, John McCarthy was the landlord of Miller's Court all the way until its demolition in 1928.
Cheers |
Neal Shelden
Police Constable
Username: Neal
Post Number: 6
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 10:01 am: | |
Hi Chris,
Daniel McCarthy was given as born in Southwark on the 1891 census. Unfortunately, I was unable to trace a birth entry for a Daniel McCarthy with the father's name as John for any of the entries for Southwark, Lambeth, and Bermondsey, from 1860-1864. Including the Daniel Charles James one.
I came to the conclusion that either Daniel was a lot older or younger than he claimed to be, or that he he was born outside of the South London area that could've just been his earliest memories.
When Daniel McCarthy died in 1895 he left in his will effects of £425 2s 10d to his brother John. |
Chris Scott
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 1:17 pm: | |
Hi All
I have been searching various sources for records relating to Daniel McCarthy. I have found one marriage record that intrigues me:
In September 1890 there was a marriage registered in Whitechapel between Daniel McCarthy and Ann Susannah Crossingham.
IN the 1881 census (as I posted above) Daniel McCarthy was listed at 27 Dorset Street (the residence of his brother). Although Crossingham's Lodging House was by the time of the murders No 35 Dorset St, at the time of the 1881 census the Crossinghams were running their lodging house at Nos 16-19 Dorset Street. In the census there are 3 Crossingham family members listed as running the establishment:
William Crossingham aged 36
Mary Crossingham aged 45 and their daughter
Annie Crossingham aged 14.
So in 1890 at the time of the marriage, Annie Crossingham would have been 23.
Although we cannot be certain, it looks a distinct possibility that our Daniel (if I may call him that) married in 1890 a young lady with whom there was a strong possibility he had been acquainted for a long time in view of the proximity of their residences.
Hope this is of some interest.
Regards
Chris S |
Stephen Miller
Police Constable
Username: Knutmill
Post Number: 3
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 2:25 pm: | |
Hi Chris in 1891 census Daniel Mc Carthy is aged 29 his wife is aged 23 and her christian name appears to be Ann
I can send a scan of this census sheet if you or anyone else wants it.
all the best
steve |
Chris Scott
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 2:25 pm: | |
Hi Neal
IN the light of your idea that Daniel McCarthy was a lot older or younger than reported in the census data, I have found a list of deaths registed in Whitechapel in September 1895, the year of his death.
Whitechapel Deaths registered September 1895
Abendana Esther 24
Dubowski Kate 53
Isaacs Sarah 77
McCarthy Daniel 33
Potts Harriett Ann 73
Youngfer Abraham 1
Magnus Jessie 0
Moses Henry 0
Romain Solomon 0
Rosen Katie 0
This Daniel McCarthy aged 33 would have been born in 1862, the year reported for "our" Daniel McCarthy in the 1881 census data.
Hope this is of interest.
Chris S |
Chris Scott
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 2:35 pm: | |
Hi Stephen
That would fit in both with Ann's age and confirm that D's age in the 1881 census (19 yo) was probably right
Would love to see a scan of that as my access to 1891 data is limited
Many thanks
Chris S |
Neal Shelden
Police Constable
Username: Neal
Post Number: 8
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 3:51 pm: | |
I posted to the boards a few days ago that Daniel McCarthy married William Crossingham's daughter Ann Susannah Crossingham. It took place at St Ann's Roman Catholic Church, Whitechapel, on 29th July 1890.
The Catholic Church still exists today but it's a nightmare trying to to get a look at the records. It could be where the McCarthy's regularly attended church, perhaps at a long short a certain Mary Jane Kelly too?
I think that Daniel McCarthy is no less a viable candidate than Hutchinson or Barnett for Jack the Ripper, so like others I think any new information about him would be welcome.
All the best.
Neal |
Chris Scott
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 4:44 pm: | |
Hi Neal
I found your earlier post with this marriage info after I posted! Many thanks for the additional info and let's hope we can get to the bottom of this McCarthy story!
Regards
Chris
|
Neal Shelden
Police Constable
Username: Neal
Post Number: 9
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 6:43 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
I knew that Daniel had died in 1895, and I've got a copy his will. But the problem is that he gave his father's name as John McCarthy, lodging house keeper on his marriage entry in 1890. When I tried the name of John McCarthy for the father's name on entries for Daniel McCarthy births 1860-64 for Lambeth, St Saviour, and Bermondsey, none of them turned out to be right. Census entries can be very unreliable and that's why I think he could have been a lot older or perhaps born abroad like his brother.
My gut feeling is that the McCarthy's had more connections to the East End than we know about?
All the best
Neal |
Chris Scott
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 8:48 am: | |
Hi Neal et al
One of things I have learned to take note of in census and other data is any oddity, anything that just seems strange or out of place. The one thing that has always intrigued me in the census data for 27 Dorset St is the fact that John McCarthy (Daniel's brother) is described as a British Subject born in France. ON the assumption that there may be some French McCarthy family connection, I searched the 1881 data for any other McCarthys who were registered as born in France. This produced 3 further individuals and what a mixed lot they are!
1) Louisa MacCarthy aged 80 born France (British Subject)
Widowed
Servant
Living at 18 Vauvert Road, St Peter Port, Guernsey
2) Mary A McCarthy aged 64 born France (British Subject)
Widowed
Char woman
No 15 New Street, Bristol St Philip and Jacob Out, Gloucester
3) Hincen P MacCarthy aged 12 born France (British Subject)
Scholar
Banisters Court School, Millbrook, Hampshire
Boarder
What connection (if any) there is between these individuals and John McCarthy I have yet to find out but I thought it might be worth posting
Chris S |
Neal Shelden
Sergeant
Username: Neal
Post Number: 11
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 3:17 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
The French connection is interesting for the McCarthy's. John appears to be called a Foreign Subject born France on the 1901 census?
I know that others have questioned why there were two John McCarthy's at 27 Dorset Street in 1891? It is strange, as both men were given the same age of 42, and even both wives Mary and Elizabeth were 38. It seems like another census mistake? I thought it could be possible that John and Mary were given the wrong age and that they could have been John and Daniel's parents. Who else other than perhaps a cousin would John allow to live in the same house?
John and Mary's son George doesn't appear on the 1881 census, in the same way that John and Elizabeth's younger children Elizabeth, Nan, Nellie and Rose don't appear on the 1901.
To all, I very much welcome any investigation into the McCarthy's, John and Daniel, even if Mr Masters chooses not come forward with information. I really do think it's an avenue of research that must be thoroughly looked into in case there was remote chance of a family connection to Mary Jane Kelly, or to the killer?
All the best.
Neal
|
Stephen Miller
Police Constable
Username: Knutmill
Post Number: 4
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 3:49 pm: | |
Hi Neal you mentioned your search for the birth certificate of Daniel McCarthy but found conflicting evidence as to name of Father. Do you think it is possible that he may have been illegitimate and gave a relative's name on his marriage as his Father to cover up his illegitimacy.
I know this happened with my Gt Grandfather
anyway just an idea
all the best
steve |
Christopher T George
Sergeant
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 45
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 3:57 pm: | |
Hi, all:
I don't know about Daniel McCarthy. But some people might say that 29 shillings back rent owed by Mary Jane Kelly might have been enough for John McCarthy to have murdered his tenant, particularly as we don't know what other dynamics may have been going on in their relationship. Then, just as in the copycat scenario posited for Joe Barnett, John McCarthy might have sought to cover up his part of the crime by making the murder appear to be a Ripper crime, based on the ghastly accounts of the Ripper's prior work as recounted in the press. In addition, to speed up the police and public's natural acceptance of this idea, what could be more perfect than to send your rent collector, Thomas Bowyer, round to 13 Miller's Court on the morning of the murder to discover the gruesome sight of Kelly's body through the partly obscured window? Thus, John McCarthy could have himself started the ball rolling with the notion that, of course, this was another ghastly crime by the Whitechapel fiend, and so neatly deflected scrutiny away from himself.
Best regards
Chris George |
Neal Shelden
Sergeant
Username: Neal
Post Number: 12
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 4:32 pm: | |
Hi Stephen,
I don't really think that Daniel lied about his father's name, I just think it's possible he got the wrong place. Sometimes people gave the place of birth as somewhere they first remembered living. I can remember back to being 3 years old, but other people can't go back earlier than 10. So therefore if we think back to Victorian times their earliest memory could be the place of birth given to the census enumerator?
There is of course a possibilty that John and Daniel had different mother's? In that way he could have been illegitimate, more research will eventually solve the problem.
Another mystery is the fact that I never managed to discover John McCarthy's marriage to Elizabeth Stevens. Perhaps some of the Catholic churches didn't send their registrations through?
All the best
Neal
|
Bob Hinton
Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 27
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 2:47 am: | |
Is it back to the quill dear friends? My computer seems to have lost all the Masters entries!
Bob |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 151
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 10:34 am: | |
Hi all
Have just dug out this thread!! Fascinating and very well researched chaps!!
Chris - Brilliant idea!re John Mc C but I still think that the 29 shillings arrears takes some explaining away!! You may well have a point!
Neal-The 'French Connection' is quite tantalizing isn't it..Dieppe,Sickert, a gentleman etc etc Any developments since March??
Lets open this one up again!! (As Jack may well have said!!)
Cheers
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 152
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 10:35 am: | |
Bob
What??
s |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1721
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 1:03 pm: | |
Hi Suzi
I seem to remember that a hoaxer calling himself Mr Masters wrote in and said he had info implicating Daniel McCarthy. Anyway once he was rumbled, Stephen deleted his posts.
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 162
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 7:13 pm: | |
Damn!!
I should have remembered that read it avidly at the time..obviously the 'orrors are upon me once agin!!..Thanks chaps!! will go and look up my vast amounts of ring binders containing the old boards!!
Cheers
Suzi |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page