|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Mary Jane Kelly and Polly Nichols connection???
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Ripper Victims:
Mary Jane Kelly and Polly Nichols connection???
Author: Ashleah Skinner
Sunday, 22 September 2002 - 06:24 pm |        | Hi, below is a news article from "The London Times" November 10 1888 it has good information and raises the question on Nichols and Kelly being aquitance:
Report as Printed in the London Times
During the early hours of yesterday morning another murder of a most revolting and fiendish character took place in Spitalfields. This is the seventh which has occurred in this immediate neighbourhood, and the character of the mutilations leaves very little doubt that the murderer in this instance is the same person who has committed the previous ones, with which the public are fully acquainted.
The scene of this last crime is at No 26 Dorset Street, Spitalfields, which is about 200 yards distant from 35 Hanbury Street, where the unfortunate woman, Mary Ann Nicholls, was so foully murdered. Although the victim, whose name is Mary Ann (or Mary Jane) Kelly, resides at the above number, the entrance to the room she occupied is up a narrow court, in which are some half-a-dozen houses, and which is known as Miller's Court; it is entirely separated from the other portion of the house, and has an entrance leading into the court. The room is known by the title of No 13. The house is rented by John M'Carthy, who keeps a small general shop at No 27 Dorset Street, and the whole of the rooms are let out to tenants of a very poor class.
As an instance of the poverty of the neighbourhood, it may be mentioned that nearly the whole of the houses in this street are common lodging-houses, and the one opposite where the murder was enacted has accommodation for some 300 men, and is fully occupied every night. About 12 months ago Kelly, who was about 24 years of age, and who was considered a good-looking woman, of fair and fresh complexion, came to Mr M'Carthy, with a man named Joseph Kelly, who she stated was her husband, and who was a porter employed at Spitalfields Market. They rented a room on the ground floor, the same in which the poor woman was murdered, at a rental of 4s a week.
It had been noticed that the deceased woman was somewhat addicted to drink, but Mr M'Carthy denied having any knowledge that she had been leading a loose or immoral life. That this was so, however, there can be no doubt, for about a fortnight ago she had a quarrel with Kelly, and after blows had been exchanged, the man left the house, or rather room, and did not return. It has since been ascertained that he went to live at Buller's common lodging-house in Bishopsgate Street.
Since then the woman has supported herself as best as she could, and the police have ascertained that she has been walking the streets. None of those living at the court or at 26 Dorset Street, saw anything of the unfortunate creature after about 8 o'clock on Thursday evening, but she was seen in Commercial-street, shortly before the closing of the public house, and then had the appearance of being the worse for drink. About 1 o'clock yesterday morning a person living in the court opposite to the room occupied by the woman heard her singing the song "Sweet Violets," but this person is unable to say whether any one else was with her at that time. Nothing more was seen or heard of her until her dead body was found.
At a quarter to 11 yesterday morning, as the woman was 35s [thirty five shillings] in arrears with her rent, Mr M'Carthy said to a man employed by him in his shop, John Bowyer, "Go to No 13 (meaning the room occupied by Kelly) and try and get some rent." Bowyer did as he was directed, and on knocking at the door was unable to obtain an answer. He then turned the handle of the door, and found it was locked. On looking through the keyhole he found the key was missing. The left-hand side of the room faced the court, and in it were two large windows. Bowyer, knowing that when the man Kelly and the dead woman had their quarrel a pane of glass in one of the windows was broken, went round the side in question.
He put his hand through the aperture and pulled aside the muslin curtain which covered it. On his looking into the room a shocking sight presented itself. He could see the woman lying on the bed entirely naked, covered with blood and apparently dead. Without waiting to make a closer examination he ran to his employer and told him he believed the woman Kelly had been murdered. M'Carthy at once went and looked through the broken window, and, satisfying himself that something was wrong, despatched Bowyer to the Commercial Street Police station, at the same time enjoining him not to tell any of the neighbours what he had discovered. Inspector Back H Division, who was in charge of the station at the time, accompanied Bowyer back, and on finding that a murder had been committed at once sent for assistance. Dr Phillips, the divisional surgeon of police, and Superintendent Arnold were also sent for. During this time the door had not been touched. On the arrival of the Superintendent Arnold he caused a telegram to be sent direct to Sir Charles Warren, informing him what had happened.
Mr Arnold, having satisfied himself that the woman was dead, ordered one of the windows to be entirely removed. A horrible and sickening sight then presented itself. The poor woman lay on her back on the bed, entirely naked. Her throat was cut from ear to ear, right down to the spinal column. The ears and nose had been cut clean off. The breasts had also been cleanly cut off and placed on a table which was by the side of the bed. The stomach and abdomen had been ripped open, while the face was slashed about, so that the features of the poor creature were beyond all recognition. The kidneys and heart had also been removed from the body, and placed on the table by the side of the breasts. The liver had likewise been removed, and laid on the right thigh The lower portion of the body and the uterus had been cut out, and these appeared to be missing. The thighs had been cut. A more horrible or sickening sight could not be imagined. The clothes of the woman were lying by the side of the bed, as though they had been taken off and laid down in the ordinary manner.
While this examination was being made a photographer, who, in the meantime, had been sent for, arrived and took photographs of the body, the organs, the room, and its contents. Superintendent Arnold then had the door of the room forced. It was a very poorly furnished apartment, about 12 ft. square, there being only an old bedstead, two old tables and a chair in it. The bedclothes had been turned down, and this was probably done by the murderer after he had cut his victim's throat. There was no appearance of a struggle having taken place, and, although a careful search of the room was made, no knife or instrument of any kind was found.
Dr Phillips, on his arrival, carefully examined the body of the dead woman, and later on made a second examination in company with Dr Bond, from Westminster, Dr Gordon Brown, from the City, Dr Duke from Spitalfields, and Dr Phillip's assistant. Mr Anderson, the new Commissioner of Police, Detective Inspectors Reid and Abberline (Scotland Yard), Chief Inspector West, H Division, and other officers were quickly on the spot. After the examination of the body it was placed in a shell, which was put into a van and conveyed to the Shoreditch mortuary to await an inquest.
From enquiries made among person living in the houses adjoining the court, and also those residing in rooms in No 26 it appears clear that no noise of any kind was heard. No suspicious or strange-looking man was seen to enter or leave the murdered woman's room, and up to the present time the occurrence is enveloped in as much mystery as were the previous murders. The man Kelly was quickly found, and his statement ascertained to be correct. After the examination the windows were boarded up, and the door padlocked by direction of the police, who have considerable difficulty in keeping the street clear of persons. Dr M'Donald, coroner in whose district the murder has happened has fixed Monday morning for the opening of the inquest, which will be held at Shoreditch Town-hall. It was reported that bloodhounds would be laid on to endeavour to trace the murderer, but for some reason this project was not carried out, and, of course, after the streets had became thronged with people that would have had no practical result. The street being principally composed of common lodging houses, persons are walking along it during all hours of the night, so that little notice is taken of any ordinarily attired men, the murderer, therefore, had a good chance of getting away unobserved.
With regard to Kelly's movements just before the murder, a report says that she was seen as usual in the neighbourhood about 10 o'clock on Thursday evening in company with a man of whom, however, no description can be obtained. She was last seen, as far as can be ascertained, in Commercial-street about half-past 11. She was then alone, and was probably making her way home. It is supposed that she met the murderer in Commercial Street, and he probably induced her to take him home without indulging in more drink.
At any rate, nothing more was seen of the couple in the neighbouring public houses, nor in the beerhouse at the corner of Dorset Street. The pair reached Millers Court about midnight, but they were not seen to enter the house. The street door was closed, but the woman had a latchkey, and, as she must have been fairly sober, she and her companion would have been able to enter the house and enter the woman's room without making a noise. A light was seen shining through the window of the room for some time after the couple must have entered it, and one person asserts positively that the woman was heard singing the refrain of a popular song as late as 1 o'clock yesterday morning, but here again there is a conflict of testimony which the police are now engaged in endeavouring to reconcile.
The same reports, describing the removal of the mutilated body, says at 10 minutes to 4 o'clock a one-horse carrier's cart, with the ordinary tarpaulin cover was driven into Dorset Street, and halted opposite Millers-court. From the cart was taken a long shell or coffin, dirty and scratched with constant use. This was taken into the death chamber, and there the remains were temporarily coffined. The news that the body was about to be removed caused a great rush of people from the courts running out of Dorset Street, and there was a determined effort to break the police cordon at the Commercial Street end.
The crowd, which pressed round the van, was of the humblest class, but the demeanour of the poor people was all that could be described. Ragged caps were doffed and slatternly-looking women shed tears as the shell, covered with a ragged-looking cloth, was placed in the van. The remains were taken to the Shoreditch Mortuary, where they will remain until they have been viewed by the coroner's jury.
Mr John M'Carthy, the owner of the houses in Millers-court, who keeps a chandler's shop in Dorset Street, has made the following statement as to the murdered woman:
The victim of this terrible murder was about 23 or 24 years of age, and lived with a coal porter named Kelly, passing as his wife. They, however, quarrelled sometime back and separated. A woman named Harvey slept with her several nights since Kelly separated from her, but she was not with her last night. The deceased's christian name was Mary Jane, and since her murder I have discovered that she walked the streets in the neighbourhood of Aldgate. Her habits were irregular, and she often came home at night the worse for drink. Her mother lives in Ireland, but in what county I do not know. Deceased used to receive letters from her occasionally. The unfortunate woman had not paid her rent for several weeks; in fact she owed 30s altogether, so this morning I sent my man to ask if she could pay the money. He knocked at the door, but received no answer. Thinking this very strange he looked in at the window, and to his horror he saw the body of Kelly lying on the bed covered with blood. He immediately came back to me, and told me what he had seen. I was, of course, as horrified as he was, and I went with him to the house and looked in at the window. The sight I saw was more ghastly even than I had prepared myself for. On the bed lay the body as my man had told me, while the table was covered with what seemed to me to be lumps of flesh. I said to my main "Go at once to the police station and fetch some one here." He went off at once and brought back Inspector Back who looked through the window as we had done. He then despatched a telegram to superintendent Arnold, but before Superintendent Arnold arrived, Inspector Abberline came and gave orders that no one should be allowed to enter or leave the court. The Inspector waited a little while and then sent a telegram to Sir Charles Warren to bring the bloodhounds, so as to trace the murderer if possible. So soon as Superintendent Arnold arrived he gave instructions for the door to be burst open. I at once forced the door with a pickaxe, and we entered the room. The sight w saw I cannot drive away from my mind. It looked more like the work of a devil than of a man. The poor woman's body was lying on the bed, undressed. She had been completely disembowelled, and her entrails has been taken out and placed on the table. It was those that I had seen when I looked through the window and took to be lumps of flesh. The woman's nose had been cut off, and her face gashed beyond recognition. Both her breasts too had been cut clean away and placed by the side of her liver and other entrails on the table. I had heard a great deal about the Whitechapel murders, but I declare to god I had never expected to see such a sight as this. The body was, of course, covered with blood, and so was the bed. The whole scene is more than I can describe. I hope I may never see such a sight again. It is most extraordinary that nothing should have been heard by the neighbours, as there are people passing backwards and forwards at all hours of the night, but no one heard so much as a scream. I woman heard Kelly singing "Sweet Violets" at 1 o'clock this morning. So up to that time, at all events, she was alive and well. So far as I can ascertain no one saw her take a man into the house with her last night.
A correspondent who last night saw the room in which the murder was committed, says it was a tenement by itself, having formerly been the back parlour of No 26, Dorset Street. A partition had been erected, cutting it off from the house, and the entrance door opened into Miller's Court. The two windows also faced the court, and, as the body could be seen from the court yesterday morning, it is evident that, unless the murderer perpetrated his crime with the light turned out, any person passing by could have witnessed the deed. The lock of the door was a spring one, and the murderer apparently took the key away with him when he left, as it cannot be found. The more the facts are investigated, the more apparent becomes the cool daring of the murderer. There are six houses in the court besides the tenement occupied by the deceased. The door of Kelly's room is just on the right-hand side on entering from the street, and other houses -- three on either side -- are higher up the passage.
The young woman Harvey, who had slept with the deceased on several occasions has made a statement to the effect that she had been on good terms with the deceased, whose education was much superior to that of most persons in her position in life. Harvey, however, took a room in New Court, off the same street, but remained friendly with the unfortunate woman, who visited her in New Court on Thursday night. After drinking together they parted at half past 7 o'clock, Kelly going off in the direction of Leman Street which she was in the habit of frequenting. She was perfectly sober at the time. Harvey never saw her alive afterwards. Joseph Barnett, an Irishman, at present residing in a common lodgingh ouse in New Street, Bishopsgate, informed a reporter last evening that he had occupied his present lodgings since Tuesday week. Previously to that he had lived in Miller's Court, Dorset Street for eight or nine months with the murdered woman Mary Jane Kelly. They were very happy and comfortable together until another woman came to sleep in the room, to which he strongly objected. Finally, after the woman had been there two or three nights he quarrelled with the woman whom he called his wife and left her.
The next day, however, he returned and gave Kelly money. He called several other days and gave her money when he had it. On Thursday night he visited her between half past 7 and 8 and told her he was sorry he had no money to give her. He saw nothing more of her. She used occasionally to go to the Elephant and Castle district to visit a friend who was in the same position as herself.
Another account gives the following details: Kelly had a little boy, aged about 6 or 7 years living with her, and latterly she had been in narrow straits, so much so that she is reported to have stated to a companion that she would make away with herself, as she could not bear to see her boy starving. There are conflicting statements as to when the woman was last seen alive, but that upon which most reliance appears to be placed is that of a young woman, an associate of the deceased, who states that at about half-past 10 o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset Street, who said to her that she had no money and, if she could not get any, would never go out any more but would do away with herself. Soon afterwards they parted, and a man, who is described as respectably dressed, came up, and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money. The man then accompanied the woman to her lodgings, which are on the second floor, and the little boy was removed from the room and taken to a neighbour's house. Nothing more was seen of the woman until yesterday morning, when it is stated that the little boy was sent back into the house, and the report goes, he was sent out subsequently on an errand by the man who was in the house with his mother. There is no direct confirmation of this statement. A tailor named Lewis says he saw Kelly come out about 8 o'clock yesterday morning and go back. Another statement is to the effect that Kelly was seen in a public-house known as the Ringers at the corner of Dorset Street and Commercial Street, about 10 o'clock yesterday morning, and that she met there her lover, Barnet and had a glass of beer with him. This statement is also not substantiated. A somewhat important fact has been pointed out, which puts a fresh complexion on the theory of the murders. It appears that cattle boats bringing in live freight to London are in the habit of coming into the Thames on Thursdays or Fridays, and leave for the continent on Sundays or Mondays. It has already been a matter of comment that the recent revolting crimes have been committed at the week's end, and an opinion has been formed among some of the detectives that the murderer is a drover or butcher employed on one of these boats -- of which there are many -- and that he periodically appears and disappears with one of the steamers. This theory is held to be of much importance by those engaged in this investigation, who believe that the murderer does not reside either in the locality or even in the country at all. It is thought that he may be either a person employed upon one of these boats or one who is allowed to travel by them, and inquiries have been directed to follow up the theory. It is pointed out that at the inquests on the previous victims the coroners have expressed the opinion that the knowledge of anatomy possessed by a butcher would have been sufficient to enable him to find and cut out the parts of the body which in several cases were abstracted.
The Whitechapel Vigilance Committee who have recently relaxed their efforts to find the murderer, have called a meeting for Tuesday evening next, at the Paul's Head Tavern, Crispin-street, Spitalfields, to consider what steps they can take to assist the police.
A Mrs Paumier, a young woman who sells roasted chestnuts at the corner of Widegate Street, a narrow thoroughfare about two minutes' walk from the scene of the murder, told a reporter yesterday afternoon a story which appears to afford a clue to the murderer. She said that about 12 o'clock that morning a man dressed like a gentleman came up to her and said, "I suppose you have heard about the murder in Dorset Street?" She replied that she had, whereupon the man grinned and said, "I know more about it than you." He then stared into her face and went down Sandy's Row, another narrow thoroughfare which cuts across Widegate Street. Whence he had got some way off, however, he vanished. Mrs Paumier said the man had a black moustache, was about 5ft 6in, high, and wore a black silk hat, a black coat, and speckled trousers. He also carried a black shiny bag about a foot in depth and a foot and a half in length. Mrs Paumier stated further that the same man accosted three young women, whom she knew, on Thursday night, and they chaffed him and asked him what he had in the bag, and he replied, "Something that the ladies don't like." One of the three young women she named, Sarah Roney, a girl about 20 years of age, states that she was with two other girls on Thursday night in Brushfield-street which is near Dorset Street, when a man wearing a tall hat and a black coat, and carrying a black bag, came up to her and said, "Will you come with me?" She told him that she would not, and asked him what he had in the bag, and he said, "Something the ladies don't like." He then walked away.
A further report received late last night says: -- "Not the slightest doubt appears to be entertained in official headquarters that this fresh crime is by the same hand which committed the others. There is also, it is to be noted, a striking similarity of the month in which the crime has been committed, for while two of the most atrocious of the other murders in the same district were committed on the 7th of the month of September and August, this was committed on the 8th -- approximately the same period in the month. This would seem to indicate that the murderer was absent from the scene of these horrors for fixed periods, and that his return was always about the same time. The late storms might account for the crime on this occasion being a day later, the suggestion, of course, being that the murderer journeys across the sea on some of the short passages.
"Last night nothing further was known at Scotland Yard. In fact, all the enquiries centre in the east of London, whither have been sent some of the keenest investigators of the country. The murders, so cunningly continued, are carried out with a completeness which altogether baffles investigators. Not a trace is left of the murderer, and there is no purpose in the crime to afford the slightest clue, such as would be afforded in other crimes almost without exception. All that the police can hope is that some accidental circumstance will lead to a trace which may be followed to a successful conclusion."
The latest account states upon what professes to be indisputable authority that no portion of the woman's body was taken away by the murderer. As already stated, the post-mortem examination was of the most exhaustive character, and surgeons did not quit their work until every organ had been accounted for and placed as closely as possible in its natural position.
A man's pilot coat has been found in the murdered woman's room, but whether it belonged to one of her paramours or to the murderer has not been ascertained. Late yesterday evening a man was arrested near Dorset Street on suspicion of being concerned in the murder. He was taken to Commercial Street police-station, followed by a howling mob, and is still detained there. Another man, respectably dressed, wearing a slouch hat and carrying a black bag was arrested and taken to Leman Street station. The bag was examined, but its contents were perfectly harmless, and the man was at once released. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 23 September 2002 - 06:57 am | | G'day Ashleah,
Thanks for bothering to type all that for us!
This report points to the fact that a photographer was there on the scene, and began taking photos before the room was actually entered, (through the window).
Interestingly: 'A woman named Harvey slept with her several nights since Kelly, [Barnett], seperated from her, but she was not with her last night'.
If Mary Kelly was being spied-on for a few days before her murder, how did this man know that Maria Harvey,(and possibly a client of Maria's), wasn't going to walk in or knock on the door at any moment? He must have known her enough to known that her friend had found somewhere else to live.
Leanne! |
Author: Vicki
Wednesday, 25 September 2002 - 12:21 am | | Ashleah.
Thanks for posting the article. What surprised me was the boarding house across the street from Mary with 300 men. A lot of possible suspects. No wonder this murder isn't solved.
Then the part about the cow boats that docked around the weekends, seemed interesting, especially with the "Dear Boss" letters. "Boss" seems to mean a man or male, but a "boss" can also be a female cow, more like the leader of a group of female cows, she's usually the oldest, and she usually gets first pick of the stalls in a barn. When a farmer would call the cows for milking, he would call, "Come Boss, Come Boss," and they would all come. Jack the Ripper's victims were all women, and they certainly were lead away to their deaths. A link with cow information: http://www2.cdepot.net/~bensays/milktime.html
Just some trivia.
Leanne,
Good question. How did he know Barnett wouldn't be popping in, also? Could it be possible with the broken window that he was actually listening to their conversations? I read that the door could be opened by putting the hand through the hole in the window.
I agree. I think the Ripper knew something of all his victims, especially their habits.
Vicki |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Wednesday, 25 September 2002 - 06:19 pm | | Vicki -
I have a feeling the Ripper knew Joe Barnett would't show up because the Ripper WAS Joe Barnett!
I honestly believe he killed Mary Kelly, but I am not sure at all that he killed the others.
Interesting things from the article I wanted to point out:
1. MJK being at first referred to as Mary Ann Kelly, the same alias Catherine Eddowes used. I know its a common name, but its just too close to be ignored!
2. The article refers to Barnett as "Joseph Kelly", same as Catherine Eddowes companion. It even gives a quote where McCarthy says the name Joseph Kelly.
3. I wish we could find out more about the little boy! I have a very sneaky feeling this child really did exist.
4. This case is making me completely crazy. There are too many missing links, too much coincidence to be coincidence.
I wish some new information would turn up.
I was reading in Ripper Notes about Walter Sickert and his "Mrs. Barrett" paintings. Has anyone ever pursued trying to see if a "Joseph Barrett" as opposed to "Barnett" was in Whitechapel at the time? |
Author: Vicki
Wednesday, 25 September 2002 - 09:27 pm | | Brenda,
"the little boy" = I wonder if the little boy has anything to do with the Royal conspiracy, or the story that began it. Two women using the same name may have been a ruse to protect the child if Mary was involved, and if the theory is right.
"Barrett and Barnett" The names are close enough to be the same person, a mistake of spelling or disguise? I have to read about Sickert yet.
Vicki |
Author: Timsta
Wednesday, 25 September 2002 - 10:32 pm | | Hi Brenda, Vicki.
Can't remember where I was reading about this right now, but I think Sickert's model "Mrs Barrett" has been definitively identified (and isn't Mary Kelly, Annie Crook, etc.)
Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than myself can point you to the source.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 26 September 2002 - 09:03 am | | G'day Brenda,
The book 'The Simple Truth' tells me that in a rush to get their stories printed, the reporters that were there on the morning of the 9th often printed uncorroborated reports. Joseph Barnett was referred to as 'Joseph Kelly', 'James Kelly', 'John Kelly', 'JOSEPH BARRETT', 'Dan' and even 'Jack'.
'Kelly was falesly reported as having had a six or seven year old child living with her, and it was elsewhere claimed that she was an accomplished artist.'
No one living in Millers Court, nor any of Mary Jane's other acquaintances mention a child living with her, so I think we can write that off as a reporters error!
Vicki: The 'little boy' report probably did inspire the 'Royal Conspiracy' fiction! Someone told me that the British love scandal. ANN, MARY, MARY ANN, ANNIE were all very common first names and aliases, and someone once told me that KELLY was a very common surname.
LEANNE! |
Author: Neal Shelden
Thursday, 26 September 2002 - 04:40 pm | | In an article recently mentioned in the Ripperologist by Andy Aliffe concerning the connection of John McCarthy and Kay Kendall, I noticed that Andy mentioned an account in the East London Observer about John McCarthy's funeral in 1934.
McCarthy died on 16 June 1934, and the account appears in the ELO for the 30 June. McCarthy is mentioned as having lived at Duval Street (formerely Dorset St) until he left in 1920 for Clapham. It said in so many words that he had a bad fall (in 1934) and it brought on heart trouble that led to his death. And that his daughter still lived in Spitalfields.
What was interesting was that amongst the names of the people that attended the funeral was a 'Mr and Mrs Kelly'. I daresay that Andy would point out that these people are not significant in anyway, but it's a pity they're not named properly in the account.
Neal |
Author: Garry Wroe
Thursday, 26 September 2002 - 06:07 pm | | Hi Neal.
About ten years ago I stumbled across a strange entry in the 1891 census returns. Living at 27 Dorset Street were two John McCarthys, each aged 42. Whilst one was London-born, the other was born in Dieppe, France. Their wives had different names, and whilst one had no children, the other had several. Typically, I recently sent my only copy of this entry to Paul Begg so I'm trusting entirely to memory here. But I have wondered whether a mistake was made when these data were originally entered. It even occurred to me that McCarthy might have been bigamously married. At any event, I certainly find it curious.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Neal Shelden
Friday, 27 September 2002 - 03:56 pm | | Hi Gary,
I've seen that particular entry myself and it is a bit odd.
Our man Barnett is obviously the one married to Elizabeth and born Dieppe, France. My suggestion is that he could be a cousin of the one married to Mary, but there's no evidence?
Even the son of the John and Mary doesn't appear to exist on the previous census of 1881. I don't know whether Andy Aliffe ever found more background detail on McCarthy before Dorset Street, but it's certainly something that needs looking into. All I found was that McCarthy was living in Johnson Street by the Stepney Gasworks in the mid 1870's. I couldn't find his marriage for some reason to wife Elizabeth Stevens? |
Author: Garry Wroe
Friday, 27 September 2002 - 07:14 pm | | Hi Neal.
Many thanks for the McCarthy information. My only surprise is that this situation appears to have stimulated little or no previous interest. Perhaps it is of no significance, but I am also puzzled as to why MacCarthy, described in the press as a reasonably successful businessman, would have confined his family to just two rooms of 27 Dorset Street. If he was moderately successful, why live under such cramped conditions? If his success was an exageration, why was Kelly allowed to accrue rent arrears?
All the best,
Garry Wroe. |
|
|
|
|
