JANUARY 2020

JANUARY   2020

Translate

Saturday, January 19, 2019

BLOODY JACK Chapter Twenty - Three

I think the people of Whitechapel were some of the hardest working citizens of London. Consider the ambitious John “Jack” McCarthy. He chose to live in Whitechapel, starting by renting a tiny storefront at 26 Dorset Street where he ran a grocery. 
That did well enough that in 1877 he married, and after a few years he bought the 2 story brick building, and the identical structure at Number 24, the other side of the four foot wide arched entrance to Miller's Court. He moved his family – 4 children by 1888 - into the top floor of Number 26, and re-opened his grocery on the ground floor. He kept Number 24, renting 2 rooms on the second floor to tenants, using the ground floor front for storage, and subdivided the ground rear into a 10 foot by 12 foot room, which he gave the address of 13 Miller's Court. “Lucky” 13 provided Jack with 23 pence a week in rent. That was how you made a profit in Whitechapel.
Plowing such profits back into his business, Jack McCarthy bought the doss house at number 30 Dorset street, and his business became known as McCarthy Rents. In March of 1882 he partnered in staging a prize fight at St. Andrew's Hall. But a dispute over profits lead to another fight, this one between the promoters, which lead to an arrest, and a fine for Jack. It is unclear if any money's were made, but Jack did not repeat his venture as a fight promoter. But it did show that Jack McCarthy was always on the look out for a profit.
On Friday, 9 November, 1888, Jack McCarthy was in his store at 24 Dorset Street, going over his books. About 10:30 that morning Jack ordered his employee, Thomas Bowyer, to walk 10 feet back to 13 Miller's Court, and collect the rent - which was 2 weeks in arrears. And he reminded  Bowyer that if there was no answer at the door, to look in the window, to confirm if the couple renting the room, Mary Kelly and Joseph Barnett, were inside, hiding or sleeping off a drunk.
That same morning, in the House of Commons, Home Secretary Henry Matthews rose to announce the resignation of Sir Charles Warren as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. It would be tricky giving this a positive spin, particularly since recently Matthews had voiced unlimited support for Warren.
The liberal press hated Warren as a reactionary martinet who had crushed the “Bloody 13 of November 1887 Trafalgar Square” demonstration. But the Conservative press saw Warren as a hero, and rumors were already circulating that Warren's one time Assistant Commissioner James Munro, had been colluding with the Home Secretary, to undermine his old boss.
Although Henry Matthew's boss, Prime Minister Robert Gascoyne-Cecil (above), was not permitted to sit in the Commons – as the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, Gascoyne-Ceicil sat in the House of Lords – Matthews knew the Prime Minister was watching him closely. 
So after reading the exchange of letters with Warren from the day before, in which Warren had resigned – again -  Henry Matthews (above) assured the Commons, “...the differences of opinion between Sir Charles Warren and Mr. Monro, had nothing to do with...parting with an officer so distinguished and so zealous in the discharge of his Office...I wish to add...The advice which I have sought from Mr. Monro was confined to the general question of the organization proper for the Department...”
It was doubtful anyone in the Commons believed that lie, but nobody had proof. So only Liberal M.P, Robert Cunninghame-Graham (above) rose to question Matthew's statement. Cunninghame-Graham had spent six weeks in jail for his part in Bloody Sunday, and he asked what Warren's use of the word "again" refereed to. “Do I understand that it is not the first time that his resignation has been placed in the hands of Her Majesty’s Government?”  The Home Secretary dodged the question saying only, “There have been previous differences of opinion which led to Sir Charles Warren tendering his resignation.” But the Home Secretary refused to provide details.
Liberal M.P. Henry Labouchere (above), who had tried as recently as march to eliminate the House of Lords entirely, asked, “What is the precise position which Mr. Monro holds now?” 
Matthews now lied to Labourchere as smoothly and as easily as a politician – which he, of course was.  Matthews said, “Mr. Monro fills no office of any kind, and is in no way connected with the Department.” 
Above all, Matthews avoided any mention of the “Special Irish Branch” of the police, which James Munro (above)  had headed while Assistant Commissioner under Warren, and which he still headed. His use of spies and political sabotage campaigns in Ireland and even in Whitechapel, must not even be hinted at. Nor could there be any whisper of Matthews' instructions to Mr. Munro and his replacement Mr Anderson, to “consult” with Matthews behind Sir Charles' back. So the lie was not revealed.  The scandal, such as it was, would end with Sir Charles' resignation.
Jack McCarthy's employee, Thomas Bowyer, was called “Indian Joe” because he had served in India. He was surviving on a pension now, and reduced to living on Dorset Street.
At about 10:40 that same morning, “Indian Joe” walked out the front door of McCarthy's grocery at 24 Dorset Street (above, left), and turned right into the narrow 4 foot wide 5 foot long alley leading to Miller's Court (above, center archway). 
The Court was a small space, little more than 10 feet wide by 20 feet long, the ground floor whitewashed and the courtyard cobblestoned.   On the left side, as you entered, was Number 1 Miller's Court, with number 2 directly above it, each the standard Whitechaple 8 foot by 8 foot room. Numbers 3 through 8 finished the left side of the court. On the right side were numbers 9 through 13, as well as a water tap, a privy toilet and a dustbin. Opposite Number 13, on the ground floor, stood a single gas lamp
Thomas Bowyer did not know the 25 year old woman who rented Number 13 (above)  as Mary Kelly, which was not surprising. Among her many aliases were Marie Jeanette Kelly, Mary Jeanette, Black Mary, Ginger and Fair Emma. 
Jack McCarthy described her as “noisy” when drunk, but  “otherwise she was a very quiet woman.” A friend described her as “ a good, quiet, pleasant girl, and was well liked by all of us." “She was not a notorious character”, said another friend. Born in Ireland and raised in Wales, Mary Kelly spoke fluent Welsh, no small accomplishment. She was handsome and well spoken, and “much superior to that of most persons in her position in life." But she was, like so many, an alcoholic.
Indian Joe” said later, “Knocking at the door, I got no answer, and I knocked again and again. Receiving no reply, I passed round the corner by the gutter spout where there is a broken window - it is the smallest window. There was a curtain. I put my hand through the broken pane and lifted the curtain. I saw two pieces of flesh lying on the table...The second time I looked I saw a body on the bed, and blood on the floor.”
Thomas Bowyer ran back into McCarthy's shop, where he told him, “"Governor, I knocked at the door and could not make anyone answer. I looked through the window and saw a lot of blood." Looking into the man's face, McCarthy's reaction was understandable. He said, “You don’t mean that, Harry.” Both men returned to the room, where Jack McCarthy pushed aside the curtain. “The sight that we saw I cannot drive away from my mind. It looked more like the work of a devil than of a man...I hope I may never see such a sight as this again.”
One writer described the discovery this way. “The wall behind the bed was spattered with blood. On the bedside table was a pile of bloody human flesh. And there on the bed, barely recognizable as human, lay the virtually skinned down cadaver of Mary Kelly.” McCarthy told Thomas to go straight to the Commercial Street police station. Pausing only to lock up his store, Jack McCarthy followed him.
At the Commercial Street Station (above), Detective Inspectors Walter Dew and Walter Beck were on duty when Thomas Bowyer ran in. Drew wrote later, “The poor fellow was so frightened that for a time he was unable to utter a single intelligible word. At last he managed to stammer out something about "another one. Jack the Ripper. Awful. Jack McCarthy sent me."” A moment later Jack McCarthy arrived, and all 4 man ran back to Dorset Street.  
Beck looked into the room, and then told his partner, "For God’s sake, Dew, don’t look."  Drew looked anyway. 
Fifty years later he wrote, “...the old nausea, indignation and horror overwhelm me still… No savage could have been more barbaric. No wild animal could have done anything so horrifying...…the poor woman’s eyes. They were wide open, and seemed to be staring straight at me with a look of terror."
The Government may have made peace with the Sir Charles Warren scandal, but Jack the Ripper had made no truce with his own demons. And he was intent up sharing them with the entire world.
- 30 -

Friday, January 18, 2019

BLOODY JACK Chapter Twenty - Two

I have to say that Sir Charles Warren, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, was not lacking suggestions as to how to catch the Ripper. Queen Victoria – yes, THE Queen Victoria - suggested the Ripper might work on one of the cattle boats that docked in London every Thursday and Friday. It was investigated.
It was suggested that East End boxers might be dressed as women and sent out as decoys. No boxers volunteered. Mr Fred Wellsely wrote the Times, suggesting the police should be mounted on bicycles, to cover more ground. That suggestion was never acted upon, either.
Congregationalist Dr. William Tyler, reverend of the King Edward Street Mission, assured a meeting of the Young Men's Christian Association that the murders were, “largely brought about by the wholesale importation of the scum of other countries.” Closing the borders was considered an over reaction. It was often suggested that a reward should be offered. The government always said no. 
 Mr. Percy Lindly, wrote the London Times on Sunday, 1 October that, “...as a breeder of bloodhounds...I have little doubt that had a hound been put on the scene...it might have done what the police have failed to do.” The police were receiving 1,200 letters a day offering suggestions, and 800 of those mentioned bloodhounds
And it wasn't that Sir Charles had no ideas of his own. He did a house-to-house search of Gouldston Street - over 2,000 people were questioned, 300 were “investigated” and 80 were detained. The effort produced nothing. Elsewhere in Whitechapel, 76 butchers and animal slaughterers were asked about their employees, going back 6 months. Nothing, again. Doctors were investigated. Again, nothing.
But always fueling the public's frustration was Sir Charles’s huge ego. On 12 October The Paul Mall Gazette, declared that washing the message off the wall above the bloody apron provided “...the last conclusive demonstration...of the utter unfitness of Sir Charles Warren....” And when the Home Secretary reaffirmed his confidence in Warren, the Gazette pounced. “Mr Matthews is satisfied with Sir Charles Warren," said the newspaper, "But he is alone in his satisfaction.”
And when the Whitechapel District Board of Works passed a resolution urging “Sir Charles Warren...to regulate and strengthen the police force...", Sir Charles took the opportunity to respond in a lengthy written lecture about the difficulties of police work, before adding, “I have also to point out that the purlieus about Whitechapel are most imperfectly lighted...” It other words, the murders were in part the board's fault. 
The London Daily News responded to “the oracle of Scotland Yard”, by asking that if the problem was lack of lighting, “why he waits until he is challenged...then only delivers this important suggestion by way of a crushing retort?”
It was arrogant public relations disasters such as these which drove Home Secretary Henry Matthews to push Warren to at least try one of the public's suggestions. So after the “double event” Warren contacted North Yorkshire dog breeder Mr. Edwin Brough, in Scarborough. Doubtful as well about how the dogs would do on the crowded streets of London, Mr. Brough still sent two of his best bloodhounds – Barnaby and Burgho – for a series of tests in Regent's Park, “as much to please the public as for any other reason”. 
After endless calls for Warren to “do something”, as early as Monday, 8 October, the Daily Telegraph threw cold water on the new project, pointing to the many ways criminals might avoid the dogs, by using “...'buses, and trams, and there are the railways to be reckoned with.”
Days were spent with the dogs chasing human prey around Regent's Park. Once Sir Charles himself was even run to ground. On 20 October the Boston Police News reprinted a story describing “Sir Charles Warren, in his tight military dress...puffing and blowing with his excretions”, after running from the dogs. “He was very mad when the evening papers came out with reports of his mornings doings, which doubtless, were also read and noticed by the murderer.”

The truth was the dogs worked better than expected, but still regularly lost the trail when it was crossed by many other human paths. Still, Warren issued orders that after the killer struck again – as everyone was certain he would – the victim's body should be undisturbed until the dogs could collect “the killer's scent.”
But the real problem with the dogs was the marking of territory. Warren did not want to pay for the dogs out of his own budget, and the bookkeepers at Scotland Yard (above) didn't either. They sent the bill to the Home Office. It was the Home Secretaries' idea, wasn't it?  But the Home Office accountants saw no reason they should pay for this harebrained dog of an idea either. 
And while the bureaucrats were passing the bill back and forth, Mr. Brough decided he could wait no longer to be paid. At the end of October Burgho was shipped to participate in a Dog Show in Brighton, while Barnaby returned to his kennel in Scarborough. But nobody told Scotland Yard.
The scorn continued to pile upon Sir Charles. Two wits, Geoffrey Thorn and Edmond Forman, wrote a parody of the popular tune, “Who Killed Cock Robin”. “I said to the Home Secretary, I broke his neck, I killed Cock Warren...Who saw him die? I said the “Pall Mall”, for I'm not his pal. I saw him die, and the “Globe” and the “Star” fell a sighing and sobbing... And the un-muzzled dogs fell a sighing and a sobbing, When they heard of the death of poor Cock Warren...
"Who'll have his place? I said Munro (above), I'll boss that show, I'll have his place, And the bobbies and the tarts fell a sighing and a sobbing...Who'll toll the bell? Mathews" said all, For he's next to fall, He'll toll the bell. And then even he fell sighing and a sobbing, When he thought of the death of poor Cock Warren.”
Other wits rewrote a poem on hunting, to read, "So when Warren (Sir Charles), Makes a miss, he may halt And declare, with some snarls, That 'twas Matthews's fault.  Matthews vowing 'twas not, But 'twas Warren's bad shot.  Then perhaps both come hard, Down on poor Scotland Yard. But whosoever the miss, And whatever is said, One is certain of this -- That a criminal's fled." 
On Saturday, 13 October, Mr Edward Pickersgill, Liberal M.P from Bethel Green, spoke to a crowd gathered to call for more police, “Sir Charles Warren was doubtless a brave soldier...but he knew nothing whatever about the duties of policemen, and ought never to have been put in the position he now occupied.” After waiting for the cheers to die down, Pickersgill blamed Warren for “the demoralization and the corruption of the Metropolitan Police force,” This conclusion was met with loud applause.
Desperate to defend himself, Sir Charles sought out the friendly pages of “Murray's Magazine, a Home and Colonial Periodical for the General Reader”. Scotsman John Murray had been a Royal Marine, and found all his editors as graduates from Oxford University. Being dedicated to “useful and entertaining” information, but offering “nothing offensive”, the subscription numbers barely rose above 5,000 copies each month. Sir Charles’s November 1888 article, “Policing the Metropolis”, was at once boring, infuriating, self-serving, self-congratitory, self pitying, pedantic and absurd.
London has for many years past,” he began, “been subject to the sinister influence of a mob stirred up into spasmodic action by restless demagogues...It is to be deplored that successive Governments have not had the courage to make a stand...and have given way before tumultuous proceedings which have exercised a terrorism over peaceful and law-abiding citizens....The whole safety and security of London depends...upon the efficiency of the uniform police constable...the primary object of an efficient police is the prevention of crime , the next that of detection and punishment....criticism leveled at police…is based upon absolutely incorrect premises...If the people of London choose to create panics and false alarms, they must prepare themselves for some extra safeguards than the present number of police..."
The Daily News was not impressed. “Sir Charles Warren's splendid endowment of self satisfaction has never been so conspicuous” they said, “as...his article in the new number of Murray's Magazine... The inferential boasting is particularly striking...everyone and everything is wrong excepting Sir Charles Warren...His "poverty of originality" is shown...hundred letters on the Whitechapel murders have contained no more than four proposals...four more than occurred to the police.”
The Star” had been gunning for Warren since the suppression of the protest in Trafalgar Square. Now, sensing their prey was wounded, they described Warren's article as “a comic interlude”, deciding “the problem is...reduced to very simple proportions....Are we going to stand for...our reactionary monomaniac in Scotland Yard?” They called his lecture, “Warrenism...The whole gospel of military despotism...of grapeshot and bludgeon...Sir Charles (above) seems to have some dim idea of isolating our criminal characters in a kind of burglars' retreat. Why not send him down to organize and manage it?”
It was the kind of stupid arrogant statement Charles Warren had made before – the self-satisfied arrogance typical of a “Gilded Age” upper crust Victorian ruling class bureaucrat   But of course a Conservative Government was not going to fire Sir Warren because he was a fair representative of their base. They might, however, fire him if he was embarrassing the leadership – which he was. 
On 8 November, Home Secretary Henry Matthews (above) sent Sir Charles a copy of a nine year old Home Office order that department chiefs were not to issue statements without first receiving his approval. Matthews ordered Sir Warren comply with that order in the future.
As expected Warren (above) wasted no time in refusing to take orders. That same day his reply arrived in Whitehall. "Sir....had I been told that such a circular was to be in force, I should not have accepted the post of Commissioner of Police. I have to point out that my duties...are governed by statute, and that the Secretary of State...has not the power...of issuing orders for the police force. This circular...would...enable every one anonymously to attack the police force without...permitting the Commissioner to correct false statements, which I have been in the habit of doing...for nearly three years past...I entirely decline to accept these instructions...and I have again to place my resignation in the hands of Her Majesty's Government."
Warren (above, left) was, of course, technically correct. His position was governed by law. But he served at the pleasure of the Home Secretary, who was now very displeased with his argumentative, arrogant jackass of a Police Commissioner. Sir Charles had threatened to resign too often. This time the Home Secretary had a replacement all lined up. Still, Henry Matthews waited until morning to send his reply. “In my judgment the claim ...to disregard the instructions of the Secretary of State is altogether inadmissible, and accordingly, I have only to accept your resignation.”
It was done. With that act, one of the primary sparks that ignited the Jack the Ripper case was dampened down. It would take a little while for the  loss to be seen and felt because Sir Charles' resignation was accepted on the very morning that yet another victim would be found horribly mutilated in the very heart of Whitechapel.
- 30 -

Blog Archive