|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 147
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 3:12 pm: |       |
Hi all,
AP, I believe that John McCarthy was Mary's pimp. This would explain why he let Mary build up such an arrears in rent, seeing as many pimps like to keep their prostitutes indebted to them.
I think he may have been the big guy in the area. He may have had a number of men actually doing the pimping work for him. Probably Thomas Bowyer was one of them.
I imagine that a good portion of McCarthy's 'fortune' came from various nefarious rackets such as prostitution- he may have been a gangster of some status, in the area.
Where Joe fits into that, I don't know. It's quite possible that while Joe was working, Mary didn't have to prostitute herself- and McCarthy was happy because the rent was getting paid.
But when Joe lost his job, he wasn't any good to Mary anymore, and she would have begun prostituting for McCarthy again- who probably put her under a lot of pressure to make up the arrears in rent.
|
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 63
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 5:00 pm: | |
Hi Marie
I don't think John McCarthy was a pimp. I do agree we need to find out why he let Mary build up such a high amount of unpaid rent.
The police described McCarthy as a most respectable man. And he was recently awarded a prize for collecting money for hospitals.
Mary Kelly only prostituted herself after Joseph Barnett lost his job. I am not sure when she started, but it was one of the reasons why he left her (according to his police statement anyway). They had only been in Millers Court for ten months. Joseph Barnett lost his job around July 1888, and the rent was being paid up to about the first week in September. So where were they getting there money from? was Barnett doing some odd jobs? did Mary start prostituting herself earlier than Barnett realized *cough*, *cough*. I was reading somewhere that there may have been a family connection between Mary and John McCarthy. I seem to remember an early newspaper report refering to Mary Kelly as Mary Jane McCarthy.
Rob
P.S. did you receive those articles okay? |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 54
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 6:53 am: | |
Hi all
Leaving aside the other victims for a moment, could someone who feels that Barnett killed Kelly please explain how they envisage his doing it - i.e. what is he supposed to have done on Nov 9th?
Robert |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 148
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 7:14 am: | |
Hi Rob,
Not sure I can agree about John McCarthy. I'm sure he did seem very respectable to the Police. And I'm sure he did give money to Hospitals, as a philanthropic gesture. But this doesn't mean he wasn't also a pimp. As we know, nothing and nobody in this world is just black and white. We are all shades of grey.
This is an extract from Paul Begg's 'Jack The Ripper, The Definitive History'. from Chapter 13, page 234:
"That road was called Datchet Street, corrupted in due course to Dorset street. By the time Mary moved there it was one of the most dangerous streets in the East End. Years later a minor villian named Arthur Harding recalled Dorset Street and John McCarthy.
'Dorset Street had an even worse reputation than Flowery Dean Street. That's where Jack the Ripper done some of his murders. We just used to call it 'the street'. There was such a large number of doss-houses on one side, furnished rooms on the other. McCarthy owned all the furnished rooms down there. He was an Irishman, abully, a tough guy.
Marie Lloyd used to see him, because there was a pub round the corner she used to go to. All his daughters were in show business on account of Marie Lloyd. They had plenty of money. McCarthy lived down there....'
'Bully' could mean pimp, and a 'bully boss' was the title of a landlord of a brothel or thieves' den. Inspector Reid told Charles Booth that the prostitutes of Pennington Street were not controlled by pimps: 'there are no bullies who live off the earnings of the women', and it is interesting in light of Arthur Harding's comment to note that several of the women living in Miller's Court were prostitutes".
So I think it's possible that McCarthy may have been Mary's pimp. McCarthy did state that he knew Mary as 'Mary Jane McCarthy', but there is no family connection that I'm aware of. Perhaps she took on his name as another psuedonym, which again might imply that she was under his protection?
But yes, you're right- It's possible that Joe was 'turning a blind eye' to Mary prostituting herself, between July and September. It's interesting to note that he claims he left he because she brought another woman to live with them. He doesn't say he left her because she returned to prostitution.
If Joe was unable to support Mary by working, she may have resented sharing the earnings she made by prostitution, with him. I think she brought her friends to live with them, because she didn't want to sleep with Joe anymore. By objecting to another woman in the room, he could easily have also meant 'she won't sleep with me anymore'. I don't think he'd have been comfortable with having an audience for intercourse. I think it was Mary's way of finally pushing Joe out of her life, and he resisted greatly.
Did you send me any articles? No, I didn't recieve them! 
Robert Linford: I will come back to your post, promise! |
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 64
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 7:52 am: | |
Hi Marie
I quoted the Central News report which was quoated by the Western Mail 10 September 1888, about John McCarthy, but I will keep an open mind based on what you said.
I will try and find where I read about Mary Kelly being called Mary Jane McCarthy and post it later.
I sent that article about Spring Heeled Jack to the e-mail address on your profile, as I don't believe I am allowed to post it on these boards because of copyright. If you want me to try again my e-mail is rclack@supanet.com
Another reason for having a prostitute staying with her is more money coming in. I agree with your point, I am also trying to figure out what she did with her money from prostitution, she wasn't paying rent, if she was giving it to McCarthy he could have deducted it from her rent, to help balance the books, and as far as I am aware she was his only tenent in debt.
Rob |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 236
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 9:51 am: | |
G'day Wolf, everyone,
WOLF: What then was Jack's mission/motive? Does any of us know for certain? Joe had a hatred for prostitution that may have began in his childhood. Can we be sure they all had a pimp in those days? Let's try to look at the history of pimphood, shall we? Maybe pimping was a practice that thrived after the 'Autumn Of Terror' in Whitechapel.
MARIE: Maybe McCarthy was performing the role of part-time pimp, or maybe she was giving him little 'favours', saying "Trust me, the money will arrive soon."
While Joe had a well-paying job, he was giving Mary gifts: "such as meat and other things." This probably enabled her stick to her drinking habit as well. As Joseph Fleming wasn't against her prostituting herself, that's probably why she was so "fond" of him.
ROBERT: You say 'Mary Kelly only prostituted herself after Joseph Barnett lost his job'. This is not strictly true. Mary and Joe met in April 1887, when Mary was staying at Cooney's Lodging House in Thrawl Street, and was known to walk the streets around Aldgate and Leman Street. Bruce Paley says: 'It appears Barnett first came to Kelly as a customer'. The pair had a drink together, he made arrangements to see her the next day and then both agreed to remain together. It sounds as though he gave himself a 'mission' to save her. Barnett forbade her to prostitute herself and according to her friend Julia Venturney, he said he "would not live with her while she led that course of life."
When Barnett lost his fish porting job at Billingsgate, he did infact start doing odd-jobs as a labourer, plus he sold oranges on the streets.
LEANNE |
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 65
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 11:41 am: | |
Hi Leanne
Sorry, I didn't make myself very clear. I know Mary Kelly started prostituing about 1884 when she was in Cardiff. What I meant was when she took up with Joe Barnett, he wouldn't have let her go on the game, she only did so after he lost his job at Billingsgate.
We can't besure when she started prostituting herself again, I only assume it was about August, because that was the reason why Joseph Barnett was reading about the murders to her.
I don't think she was fond of Joseph Fleming because he let her prostitute herself.
Rob |
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 66
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 12:33 pm: | |
Hi Marie
According to an obscure newspaper the Daily Star and Herald which is published in Panama. The Thursday 22 November 1888 edition had this to say:
This murder was perpetrated off Dorset Street, within 300 yards of the place where Annie Chapman was murdered and mutilated, in a place called Millar Court. Mary Jane McCarthy was the name of this victim, and she lived with her little son in a small room off the court.
The Daily Star and Herald got its information from New York papers.
In Andy and Sue Parlours book "The Jack the Ripper Whitechapel Murders". They found a birth certificate for a Mary Jane Kelly born in 1864, whose parents were John Kelly and Ann McCarthy. It's not provern that this was the Mary Kelly but it would explain a few things if they were somehow related.
Isn't there a family connection between Marie Lloyd and John McCarthy? I am sure I read there was somewhere.
Rob |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 152
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 4:16 pm: | |
Hi all,
Leanne: I agree with you, I think it's possible that McCarthy had a part-time relationship with Mary, either as a pimp of sorts, or as a sometime lover. Keeping her in arrears with the rent, would ensure that she kept working.
Rob: I thought that I read John McCarthy said he knew Mary as Mary Jane McCarthy, but I guess I was wrong. Thanks for the info regarding that.
If the birth certificate you mentioned is legit, then Mary could have been a relative of McCarthy's, but McCarthy himself never made any statements to that effect. McCarthy is a common enough name, isn't it?
I'm not sure what type of arrangement Mary had with John McCarthy, but I don't imagine he expanded his business empire so effectively, by letting people get so far in arrears with the rent. She couldn't have been drinking all her money from prostitution away, could she?
I think I read there was a family connection between Marie Lloyd, and McCarthy, but I can't remember where I read it. McCarthy's son and daughter in law were successful music hall performers.
I emailed you regarding the articles you tried to send me, I'd love to read them. The email on my profile is valid, please try again!
Thanks,
-M.
|
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 67
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 4:53 pm: | |
Hi Marie
I am not sure if the birth certificate is legit, if not there may have been something going on between Mary Kelly and John McCarthy as you suggest or perhaps she was giving him freebies.
As to your suggestion that Mary had women stay with her so she wouldn't have had to have rumpy pumpy with Barnett. I am not to sure about, they weren't going to be there 24/7 so they must have had some time alone, perhaps it was to help pay the rent they weren't paying? Of course this could be pure gossip or bullshit on my part.
I re-sent those article about 5 o'clock. Surprised you haven't got them. I got your e-mail okay and just used the reply icon to send them to you. What I'll do is send you a test e-mail with no attachments and then one page at a time (theres only four) Otherwise I don't know what to suggest. I could retype the articles and send as an e-mail, let me know if you receive anything.
Rob |
Amy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 6:59 am: | |
Maybe Joseph Barnett got some1 to kill mary kelly for him? she was supposed to b 3 months pregnant, he had a key and he knew mary kelly well, all of her weaknesses and that. Nobody with no medical knowledge could of done what they done to mary kelly. I believe it was a midwife or somebody with medical knowledge.  mayb thats it? from, amy  |
amy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 9:56 am: | |
So does every1 think joseph barnett murdered mary kelly?! i feel he got some1 to do it for him. i beleive it may of been a midwife |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 151
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 9:59 pm: | |
Amy,
I don't believe he had a thing to do with it, but I've stayed away from this thread from fear of the "true believers" pouncing on me. 
B |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 155
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 5:46 am: | |
Hi Rob,
You're probably right, I think Mary would have appreciated the extra income from having a friend stay with her. I just think it would have had the added benefit of meaning she didn't have to be alone with Joe.
I did recieve pages 1 and 2 of the articles you sent- fabulous, thank you so much! I think my box rejected the last two pages, unfortunately. I mailed you about it.....
thanks, Rob
-M.
Brian, feel free to post your comments. I thought that debate was the whole point of a messageboard. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 243
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 7:08 am: | |
G'day,
Bruce Paley's book says that Mary Kelly was: 'Born in Limerick, Southwest Ireland, around 1864, she had as many as six brothers and at least one sister.' I'd say the birth certificate found is legit!
The only reference to a 'John Kelly' is in another chapter and is about Catharine Eddowe's 'John Kelly' - the plot thickens!
MARIE: I don't think McCarthy would have wanted to admit to having a relationship with the deceased! Paley wrote: 'Joseph Barnett said that he didn't know why Kelly and Fleming split up, but it's very likely that Kelly's drinking was a factor. Her friends and neighbours reported having frequently seen Kelly drunk.' Julia Venturney testified: "[She] often got drunk". Perhaps Kelly accepted payments of alchohol from her clients! Remember the man with a "carroty moustache" who was carrying a pot of ale!
ROBERT: Do you have 'WordPad'? Try saving your articles onto 'My Documents' as 'Unicode Text Documents (*.txt)', then open them on 'WordPad'. This programe doesn't support images, so the files will appear as text only. Then press 'Send'. The internet should be turned on before you start this. Then just type in Marie's email address, check that your aricle is attatched, and press 'SEND".
AMY & BRIAN: Why don't either of you think that Joseph Barnett couldn't have done it? In a fit of rage, an unstable minded person can do anything! Amy, Mary Kelly wasn't pregnant. Her postmortem report proved this!
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 30
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 8:27 am: | |
Call me cynical, but my guess is that Mary Kelly found it all too easy converting her earnings from prostitution into alcohol, and the devil's own job retaining a single penny in the rent tin come Fridays. If she was aware of her own lack of self-discipline, and that McCarthy's patience was wearing thin (after all, we know he sent Bowyer round to collect on at least the one occasion, which argues against any permanent rent-free 'arrangement'), she would have seen female company as a chance to solve her immediate problems. If they covered her rent with their own earnings, so much the better. Maybe she saw it as a way she could continue to spend hers on booze while retaining the rotten roof over her head - until something better turned up.
I think when she encountered Jack, one of her last conscious thoughts would simply have been, "Ah, here comes my next drink". But she may have thought, subconsciously, "I wonder if this is something better turning up."
Love,
Caz
|
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 154
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 9:29 am: | |
Leanne,
Most of my bias against Barnett is based on my fundamental beliefs about the case.
I believe the Ripper was a sexual serial killer, and that the killings were a result of his being unable to control those impulses.
I believe that Kelly was a Ripper victim, and was killed by the same hand that killed Nichols, Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes.
I believe that the police did a thorough and exhaustive investigation of the suspects and if Barnett could not account for his exact whereabouts with appropriate corroboration during the 4 hour interview, he would have been held over for further questioning.
I believe that despite their errors, the fact that not a single contemporary police official suspected Barnett of the crime is a major obstacle to his being included as a "prime" suspect.
That's why I rule out Barnett. Paley's theory is interesting, although I don't recall anyone, except perhaps Romeo Montague, taking such dreadful steps in the name of love. As for the death of MJK, it seems that everyone's theories rest on witness testimony and assumptions, which - in my humble opinion - is like trying to build a house with a foundation made of quicksand.
Overall, my Ripper theory bends towards what I have dubbed the "common sense approach to Ripperology". I'm working on a bit of an editorial about it right now. If I get to where I like it, maybe I'll submit it to Ripperology. Barnett as the Ripper just doesn't make sense to me.
B |
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 68
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 4:24 pm: | |
Hi Leanne, Marie, Brian, Caz
Leanne, thanks for the advice, the problem was Marie had a crappy e-mail sevice.
Marie, The Arthur Harding quote you mention was interesting, specially the passage: "He was an Irishman, a bully, a toughguy."
John McCarthy was born in Dieppe and was a naturalized British subject, so why did Arthur Harding think he was Irish?
I am also wondering if Mary tried to break up with Joe Barnett before October 30. Perhaps he was someone who wouldn't take no for an answer. And that was another reason why Mary had women stay with her?
Rob |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 246
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 6:57 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
I spent ages trying to send Stephen Ryder past 'Ripperoo' stories that I had saved onto disks, so we could display them here on 'Casebook' on the 'Ripperoo' page. He kept saying that they came through as "goobly-goop". Then I worked out that I first had to convert them to a format that his computer could recognize. I kept trying and eventually worked it out. I couldn't send the pictures, just the text, so that's why they appear here without pictures. Now I can send a sample story as each issue comes out, and now you know how to do it. For the covers of 'Ripperoo' I had to post photocopies of, that's why they are not colour, but Julian Rosenthal has put 'Spryder' on our mailing list, so he can use the origional covers with colour.
BRIAN: There's that 4 hour interview coming back into the picture again! First of all he told everyone it was 2 at first, but it was probably more like 4 and would have been long because of his stuttering.
Secondly, Mary Kelly's probable time of death wasn't yet established, so his alibi would have reduced to "I was in bed."
You must believe that the real 'Ripper' was never interviewed by the police in 1888, because they were so great in the early days of policing! People here are saying that the testimonies of witnesses shouldn't be relied on, but what about friends who verified alibis back then?
Hey maybe he said: "IIII WWWas in BBBED, SSSSir!" for every time he was asked the question: "Where were you on the night of...."
I wonder during this 4 hour interview,(of which no records have survived, unfortunately), he was asked about HIS past life?
Couldn't he have been: 'uncontrollable to control those impulses' when he murdered the woman he loved, who wasn't returning that love?
LEANNE
|
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 164
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 9:03 am: | |
Leanne,
You don't think that presented with Barnett that the Met wouldn't have asked him to verify where he was on the nights of the other murders?
Friends who verified alibis had the advantages of knowing who they were supposed to be verifying the alibis of. And if you hear three or four people confirm that someone was where he said he was, it's a bit more reliable than "I saw someone I've never seen before in the dark while someone else yelled at me and I was scared for my life".
And seeing how the police did interview all of the usual suspects, I'm sure they may have interviewed him and let him go. That's, of course, a possibility. Just this year Scott Petersen walked around for four months before they arrested him for killing his wife.
And while, of course, it's entirely possible that someone can "murder the woman he love, who wasn't returning that love?", most of these domestic homicides don't end up with the lover scattering all the parts of his "love" across the room and keeping the heart for himself. Most end up holding the gun (or knife, or bat, or whatever) and waiting for the cops to show up. If Scott Medine is reading this - am I wrong?
Jacky got MJK and I think the case for Barnett being the Ripper is slim.
B |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 160
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 9:06 am: | |
Hi all,
Brian: I would have to disagree, and argue that women are more likely to be killed by men that they know. I've read that men who idolize their partners are more likely to kill or abuse them than those who are involved in stable, loving relationships. If Joe killed Mary, I think the newspaper reports of the 'Ripper' murders may have served to unbalance a mind that had possibly been made fragile by childhood trauma (and possible alcoholism).
Yes, 'tis speculation on my behalf!
Caz, you wrote: "(after all, we know he sent Bowyer round to collect on at least the one occasion, which argues against any permanent rent-free 'arrangement')"
I agree with you. I think McCarthy's patience with Mary was wearing thin, and that she was possibly aware of that. Which was perhaps contributing to her alcoholism spiralling even further out of control. She may have felt as if her whole world was collapsing.
Rob: Thank you so much for the articles!
I've no idea why Harding though that McCarthy was an Irishman. Perhaps some of his account was accurate, and some not. And yes, I'd agree with you regarding Barnett. I'm personally of the opinion that Mary tired of him soon after he lost his job. I think she was trying to push him out of her life, and prefered the company of her female friends (as well as their extra income). I think Joe resisted being pushed out of her life, and hence the bitter arguements.
|
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 168
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 11:21 am: | |
Marie,
I'd go a step further and say that most people in general are likely to be killed by people that they know. But how often do we see the victim eviscerated and destroyed like that? From what I've read, most of the time when men kill their wives, etc. they have some remorse and at least make an effort to cover up the body (Scott, let me know if I'm off base).
I don't know how Barnett could love a woman so much, and hate her prostitution so much that he's willing to kill her, but then doesn't care that the entire world will see her completed naked, breasts and other genetalia flayed off and scattered about the apartment.
If MJK had disappeared, and was later found with her head cut off and hidden somewhere, I could see Barnett being a suspect. In that case, the "love" motive makes sense to me. I mean - even OJ didn't mutilate Nichole.
But the way MJK was killed, the way the body was left open for the world to see doesn't fit how I see a lover, even an angry, jilted one, treating the remains of his love.
And if we remove that motive, we've really got no case against Barnett.
B
|
Zkot
Police Constable
Username: Humanvulture
Post Number: 4
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 12:38 pm: | |
Hi Brian,
Perhaps Barnett never really loved Mary Kelly, but rather he loved to potentially control her?
Lustmord knows no boundaries.
Cheers,
Scott (with a Z) |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 129
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 2:01 pm: | |
Hi,
I have always considered Barnett as the most likely killer of at least Kelly, but I now tend to believe that although he hated her way of life , and tried desperately to change her, he failed, and was simply a victim of a change of heart . Kelly was in a desperate state financialy, and she was contemplating absconding from the area, and her desperation landed her in a mess that was irreversable.. See my thread A common sence approach;
I believe Barnett believed Kelly was lying on that bed . the mutalations were that intense, and he was just a innocent person that has been accused of her possible murder .
This is a change of heart for me, and mayby I am to hasty, we will see..
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 57
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 3:10 pm: | |
Richard, it's good to see Barnett with one less accuser....but where does your Number 39 theory fit into all this?
Robert |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
