Jack The Ripper Forums  - Ripperology For The 21st Century  

Go Back   Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century > The Witnesses + Evidence

The Witnesses + Evidence Inquest testimonies and how they have influenced Ripperology...from Albert Cadosch to a cry of "Oh,Murder !"....from the Goulston Street Graffito to those letters from Hell.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 11th, 2017, 06:34 PM   #101
Gary Barnett
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 6,426
Default Who was MJK's 'drover'?

Was it Joe Barnett, or someone else?

Name:  image.jpg
Views: 79
Size:  178.6 KB
Gary Barnett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2017, 08:22 PM   #102
Anna Morris
Registered User
 
Anna Morris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Idaho, USA
Posts: 3,422
Default

Early reports suggested Mary's name was Lizzie Lawrence as well as Lizzie Tischer/Fischer. I always thought some people and names got mixed up along the way. We also have no idea who rented #13 before Joe & Mary moved in. Maybe the previous tenant(s) were remembered.
__________________
If the shawl doesn't fit, you must acquit.~~Henry Flower, Casebook post
Anna Morris is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2017, 09:25 AM   #103
Gary Barnett
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 6,426
Default

Could Stephen Maywood have been Mrs Hewitt's drover?

To recap:

In June 1887, a Mr Dwane, one of Charles Booth's researchers, recorded a drover living at 1, Breezer's Hill. He commented that the premises was a brothel, as also were nos 2 & 4 Breezer's Hill and 79, Pennington Street, the corner house adjoining 1, Breezer's Hill.

No name was given for the drover, but it was recorded that he had two school age children.

The electoral registers for 1883 to 1888 show a man named Stephen Maywood living at 1, Breezer's Hill. Maywood was a cattle/horse dealer, and in 1887 he had two sons of school age.

On the 10th of April, '88, Maywood's two sons were enrolled at Lower Chapman Street School. Stephen was recorded as their father, his occupation was given as 'horse dealer' and the family address as 94, Cornwall Street. Next to the address was written 'absent' (presumably a reference to the boys' father?). The children were removed from the school in May, 1888 and the reasons given were 'left neighbourhood' and 'continually travelling'. I think the family (certainly the children) may have gone back to Ilford briefly before returning to the East End in 1889. But there is no evidence that Stephen was with them.

By 1891, the Maywoods, plus the Morganstern and Woodhouse families from 79, Pennington Street, had moved to Limehouse. The Maywoods were at 1, Rich Street, the Woodhouses were at 7, Rich Street and the Morgansterns were just around the corner in the West India Dock Road. Rich Street was one of the worst streets in Limehouse, being comprised largely of brothels. In 1891 Maywood was registered to vote at both 1 and 7, Rich Street.

It can't be a coincidence that three families living in brothels on the same street corner in a notorious red light district moved to another such area around the same time. They must surely have known each other.

MJK was said to have lived for a time in Breezer's Hill/Pennington Street with a Mr Morgenstern and a Mrs McCarthy (Woodhall's wife's maiden name). No 1, Breezer's Hill and 79, Pennington Street seem to have at one stage been a single premises, the Red Lion pub. It seems extremely likely that Maywood and MJK were acquainted.

Maywood's subsequent career was as a farmer and livestock dealer. He and his sons owned numerous properties, several of which mysteriously caught fire. He was involved in a cattle fraud, had numerous other brushes with the authorities and was declared bankrupt.

For much of his life he had two 'wives' - his legal wife, Sarah, and another named Gertie who was in fact the wife of a horse thief known as 'Ginger' Tom Darkins.


So,

Stephen Maywood was a drover/livestock dealer (and also, it seems, a brothel-keeper).

He was almost certainly known to the Morgenstern/Woodhouse (McCarthy) families of 79, Pennington Street and through them - and by physical proximity - to MJK. Indeed, it could be said that he had 'lived in the same house' as MJK.

In 1888, he seems to have spent a lot of time travelling.

He was a man who was not unfamiliar with receiving summonses.

Although married, he was not averse to 'a bit on the side'. Gertie was not on the scene until the 1900s.

The similarity between Maywood and the man described by Mrs Hewitt is intriguing, don't you think?

The fly in the ointment, of course, is the name Lawrence used by the drover who called on Mrs Hewitt. I haven't come across that name in connection with Maywood.
Gary Barnett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2017, 04:42 PM   #104
Anna Morris
Registered User
 
Anna Morris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Idaho, USA
Posts: 3,422
Default

Very interesting, Gary.

On topic but a little off: We can wonder what Mary was actually doing at 13 Millers Court. Joe said he would have taken her back if she had agreed to leave Millers Court. What was the importance of that and why did he care so much about where she/they lived? Maybe when Mary had a fixed address her acquaintances & clients knew where to find her. Maybe at times her address became an alternate address for some of these people, like the drover. If Lawrence wasn't his name and Dorset Street wasn't his address, how much power would a summons have?

Maybe she was counting on some of her past acquaintances paying off her back rent?
__________________
If the shawl doesn't fit, you must acquit.~~Henry Flower, Casebook post
Anna Morris is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2017, 05:55 PM   #105
Gary Barnett
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 6,426
Default

Hi Anna,

If the MJK story that has come down to us via Barnett etc is true, she must surely at some point have had a 'sponsor', or a series of such - pimps, madames, placeurs - who viewed her as a business asset. The move from Cardiff to Kensington and the forays to Paris suggest she had some kind of backing. And the sheer scale of prostitution in and around Pennington Street, involving numerous women from the continent, would seem to have been well organised.

Perhaps she was a troublesome asset and her sponsor was eventually glad to see the back of her. Perhaps not. Perhaps whoever had been running her in earlier years felt she had a debt to work off.

You'll remember the story of the girl who returned to 1, Rich Street (shortly after Maywood's time) with insufficient money for the Madame of the house and was beaten and thrown down the stairs, subsequently dying of her injuries.

Gary
Gary Barnett is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10 Beta 2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright @ Howard & Nina Brown 2015-2022