Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Andrew Stevens

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Andrew Stevens

    In his inimitable style, Lord Orsam may have inadvertently brought to light an interesting individual:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	6A179185-EEAE-4750-9B8F-0A5E793DC01B.jpeg
Views:	1
Size:	324.4 KB
ID:	564804

  • #2
    So who was this Andrew Stevens who allegedly assumed John McCarthy’s responsibility for the running of the hovels in Miller’s Court? Was he one of the ‘Lords of Spitalfields’?

    I’ve found a likely candidate, but he seems to have been a mere employee of McCarthy’s rather than his business competitor.

    I’ve always believed the address Stevens gave at the Roman inquest, 11, Duval(Dorset) Street, was one of McCarthy’s doss houses. The 1901 census shows Stevens as the caretaker of another McCarthy doss house, 30, Dorset Street, and he gave that address and occupation in 1905 when his daughter was christened.

    So far I haven’t been able to find Stevens in the land tax records for 1-6, Miller’s Court - McCarthy is recorded as the owner in 1910 for example with the occupiers as simply ‘tenants’. I would be grateful if anyone can put me straight on this.

    By 1911, Stevens, aged 47, is acting as caretaker at 27, White’s Row and is recorded as ‘blind she 45’. It seems he may have changed his employer and lost his sight shortly after giving evidence at the Roman inquest.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
      So who was this Andrew Stevens who allegedly assumed John McCarthy’s responsibility for the running of the hovels in Miller’s Court? Was he one of the ‘Lords of Spitalfields’?

      I’ve found a likely candidate, but he seems to have been a mere employee of McCarthy’s rather than his business competitor.

      I’ve always believed the address Stevens gave at the Roman inquest, 11, Dorset Street, was one of McCarthy’s doss houses. The 1901 census shows Stevens as the caretaker of another McCarthy doss house, 30, Dorset Street, and he gave that address and occupation in 1905 when his daughter was christened.

      So far I haven’t been able to find Stevens in the land tax records for 1-6, Miller’s Court - McCarthy is recorded as the owner in 1910 for example with the occupiers as simply ‘tenants’. I would be grateful if anyone can put me straight on this.

      By 1911, Stevens, aged 47, is acting as caretaker at 27, White’s Row and is recorded as ‘blind age 45’. It seems he may have changed his employer and lost his sight shortly after giving evidence at the Roman inquest.
      Ah, no, 27, White’s Row was also owned by McCarthy in 1910. So it seems likely that this Andrew Stevens was working for McCarthy as a ‘caretaker’ in 1909. How likely is it that he would have been the ‘rateable owner of 1-6 Millers Court’? Some kind of a front for McCarthy perhaps, one that wasn’t reflected in the land tax records?

      Comment


      • #4
        When Stevens married Sarah Skinner in 1899, his occupation was given as ‘labourer’ and both he and his bride were resident at 30, Dorset Street.

        Comment


        • #5
          Any comments, Trevor?

          Comment


          • #6
            Not sure how number 6 ended up below number 12. This is part of the plan drawn by the Metropolitan Police, which I got from Mark Ripper many years ago.
            Click image for larger version

Name:	Map 1, 07 March 2009 (7).jpg
Views:	1
Size:	122.2 KB
ID:	561528

            And this is a drawing of the building.
            Click image for larger version

Name:	The People Sunday 4 July 1909 Scene of the tragedy.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	56.3 KB
ID:	561529

            Rob

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
              Not sure how number 6 ended up below number 12. This is part of the plan drawn by the Metropolitan Police, which I got from Mark Ripper many years ago.
              [ATTACH]21650[/ATTACH]

              And this is a drawing of the building.
              [ATTACH]21651[/ATTACH]

              Rob
              Thanks, Rob.

              Orsam uses the same plan in one of his ‘articles’.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                Any comments, Trevor?

                What would you like me to comment on?


                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                  Thanks, Rob.

                  Orsam uses the same plan in one of his ?articles?.
                  Don't think I've ever read that far.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
                    Don't think I've ever read that far.
                    I just cherry-pick some of the smaller nuggets. They often contain some very amusing stuff. This one is a classic.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                      What would you like me to comment on?


                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      This masterwork by Lord Orsam. Really it’s just a vehicle for him to slag off Casebook, me, Scott Nelson and Sean. But let’s take it at face value and assume it’s meant to be a serious contribution to the field.

                      What do you reckon, does this sort of thing deserve a response?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                        This masterwork by Lord Orsam. Really it?s just a vehicle for him to slag off Casebook, me, Scott Nelson and Sean. But let?s take it at face value and assume it?s meant to be a serious contribution to the field.

                        What do you reckon, does this sort of thing deserve a response?

                        I'm a bit confused. Isn't this thread a response to it?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
                          I'm a bit confused. Isn't this thread a response to it?
                          You don?t need to be confused, Chris. As I pointed out earlier, I’m intrigued by Andrew Stevens.

                          But even if this thread was simply a response to Orsam’s sneering, I fail to see why it would be inappropriate to ask Trevor whether it was worthy of a response.

                          Glad to see you are taking an interest. It seems highly likely to me that McCarthy owned the room in which Roman was killed. What do you think?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                            This masterwork by Lord Orsam. Really it?s just a vehicle for him to slag off Casebook, me, Scott Nelson and Sean. But let?s take it at face value and assume it?s meant to be a serious contribution to the field.

                            What do you reckon, does this sort of thing deserve a response?
                            He has challenged what some researchers have said on certain topics in Ripperology stating quite bluntly that they have been wrong and have misled the ripper community, and he has put his money where his mouth is by showing quite clearly the proof he has to back up what he alleges.

                            If those researchers can prove that he is wrong, and that they are in fact quite correct, then it is for them to step up to the plate and rebut what he is stating. or argue their case in any way they see fit, or have the metal to stand up and say yes I am wrong you are right.

                            But we haven't seen that, the silence has been deafening from those who have been targeted and those whose research has been brought into question, leading the rest of us to accept what he is saying as being correct.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                              You don?t need to be confused, Chris. As I pointed out earlier, I?m intrigued by Andrew Stevens.

                              But even if this thread was simply a response to Orsam?s sneering, I fail to see why it would be inappropriate to ask Trevor whether it was worthy of a response.

                              Glad to see you are taking an interest. It seems highly likely to me that McCarthy owned the room in which Roman was killed. What do you think?

                              I can understand that things have got very personal, and that insults have been fired off on both sides. The Diary is an apple of discord, and I've participated in plenty of Diary-engendered discord in the past myself.


                              I just think it's inappropriate to belittle David's research abilities, which are considerable.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X