Why not McCarthy ?

[Sally]

Sally, There's still something unclear (not to say shady) with McCarthy; it is the way he deposed in testimony, in Shoreditch, saying he saw a kidney on the table while peeping through the window afer "his man Bowyer": how could a chandler shopkeeper distinguish a kidney from other organs in a pile of flesh, at nearly 2 meters, in the dusk of a room? Maybe he had good reasons: having place it there himself ?

People ate a lot more offal then Gene. Most people would've known what a kidney looked like

[richardnunweek]

Hello Sally.
All of this is tongue-in-cheek, it just goes to show, how anybody can be in the frame, by using speculation.
Whoever killed Mary Kelly, would have left Millers court in a deranged state physically, and mentally, and almost certainly drenched in blood, even if a top coat hid much of it.
It is certain that this individual would have been in a very excitable state, rather like the young man[ bloodstained] who rushed into a guy who was walking through Mitre square[ of all places] at 1010am some 35 minutes before the body of Kelly was discovered.
Although we have Cox's Blotchy, and Hutchinson's A man alleged to have been in the victims company on that night, we also have reports of a young man of smarter appearance.
Regards Richard.

[Gene Lewis]

Sally, There's still something unclear (not to say shady) with McCarthy; it is the way he deposed in testimony, in Shoreditch, saying he saw a kidney on the table while peeping through the window afer "his man Bowyer": how could a chandler shopkeeper distinguish a kidney from other organs in a pile of flesh, at nearly 2 meters, in the dusk of a room? Maybe he had good reasons: having place it there himself ?

[Sally]

Thanks sally & Richard
one thing disturbing me about the McCarthy hypothesis: when the killer left Miller'"s Court, it was nearly dawn; streets crowded with the Spitalfields workers and he should have been covered with blood... The Whitechapel atmosphere (i suppose) was rather suspiscious at the time of MJK murder, weren't they ? How could that man disapeared ? Let's suppose that the back shop of McCarthy got a door ? Just the archway to Dorset st to cross and whooop, vanished !
(again, excuse my english, i'm French…)

Hi Gene

He may not have been covered in blood. It had been a cold autumn night, presumably he had a coat of some sort (Astrakhan?) which he could have taken off once inside Kelly's room. If he then put it back on again when he left it would have concealed most of the blood. It wouldn't have been that light outside either and it would have taken only seconds to have reached to comparative safety of Dorset Street. If anybody had seen him, all they would've seen then was a man going to work, or a punter leaving Kelly's room.

IF he emerged covered in blood, it would have been more risky. Nonetheless, if anybody had seen him at the time, walking away down Dorset Street, chances are (if they'd noticed in the dim morning light) that they'd have seen a slaughterman or butcher and taken little notice.

Unless he'd been foolish enough to run away from the scene, he'd have got away with it. Whatever the case, we know that he did get away with it.

As for McCarthy, there's really nothing in the evidence to suggest that he hid anything from the police. How do we know that Kelly was in arrears with the rent? If, say, McCarthy had killed, or had killed, Kelly on account of her owing him money, he'd hardly have told the police that she was in arrears, for example.

[Gene Lewis]

PS: have we any clues about a backshop door or window, to McCarthy's chandler shop?

[Gene Lewis]

Thanks sally & Richard
one thing disturbing me about the McCarthy hypothesis: when the killer left Miller'"s Court, it was nearly dawn; streets crowded with the Spitalfields workers and he should have been covered with blood... The Whitechapel atmosphere (i suppose) was rather suspiscious at the time of MJK murder, weren't they ? How could that man disapeared ? Let's suppose that the back shop of McCarthy got a door ? Just the archway to Dorset st to cross and whooop, vanished !
(again, excuse my english, i'm French…)

[Sally]

Gene, Richard -

Hi Gene,
McCarthy as a suspect?
A lot more plausible then some theories, albeit unlikely.
Lets look at some pointers.
A] He was responsible for the body being found via Bowyer:
B]His great grand -daughter[ hearsay] describes his habit of watching the court through a back window.
C]The victim owed him 29 shillings in rent.
D] Although his wife and 14 year old son were collecting rents in the court, he obviously instructed them to not call on Kelly, as he sent his man instead.
Why??...Did he wish them not to overlook the horror, or did he suspect something was wrong?
Although the landlord, he appears not to have a spare key, and had to use a pickaxe, was this a ploy, to suggest that was his only access?
None of this implies that he was responsible, but they access some debatable points.
Regards Richard.

Motive is lacking so far as we can tell. McCarthy had no need to kill Kelly for the sake of 29 shillings; not a large sum for him - so it wasn't money.

He did send Bowyer to collect the rent, yes. The most obvious answer as to why (and not his wife or son) is that Bowyer might have had more luck getting money out of Kelly. Did he even expect to get any rent, considering how much in arrears she was?

The key - the key is interesting. You'd expect the landlord to have a spare, wouldn't you? I mean, tenants must have lost keys on a fairly regular basis - people lose keys all the time. Why didn't he have a key?

I don't think McCarthy killed Kelly (probably not anybody). You could argue that he was a Fenian conspirator, I suppose; that Kelly was and that was why she copped it.

Whether you believe that sort of thing depends on how 'mad' you think her killer was. Personally I see somebody whose sense of reality was very far removed from what we might generally consider to be normal; and I find that difficult to reconcile with the idea that her murder was politically motivated.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Gene,
McCarthy as a suspect?
A lot more plausible then some theories, albeit unlikely.
Lets look at some pointers.
A] He was responsible for the body being found via Bowyer:
B]His great grand -daughter[ hearsay] describes his habit of watching the court through a back window.
C]The victim owed him 29 shillings in rent.
D] Although his wife and 14 year old son were collecting rents in the court, he obviously instructed them to not call on Kelly, as he sent his man instead.
Why??...Did he wish them not to overlook the horror, or did he suspect something was wrong?
Although the landlord, he appears not to have a spare key, and had to use a pickaxe, was this a ploy, to suggest that was his only access?
None of this implies that he was responsible, but they access some debatable points.
Regards Richard.

[Gene Lewis]

Excuse me, maybe it's a bit daring for a newbie, but why not McCarthy as a suspect ? Too close at hand ?