Why not McCarthy ?

[DRoy]

I'm not sure if McCarthy a/o Bowyer are guilty of the MJK murder or not but they both are suspicious beacuse of the discrepencies in what they apparently said.

McCarthy (specifically since this is his thread) is quoted in many papers saying different things. I realize that we can't believe everything we read in the papers including quotes however nothing is really consistent in what he says.

When the papers say "McCarthy has given the following statement...", what do they mean by that? Does it mean he gathered everyone around him and told the story once? Does it mean he gave statements to individual reporters? How could his story fluctuate (similar to the inquest reports) so much?

If someone can answer the above questions then maybe the irregularities in his statements can be explained as well. Don Souden's fascinating dissertation "Time is on my side" discusses most of them but there have been many great finds since he wrote it that I'm sure we could dispell some stories but expand on others.

Cheers
DRoy

[Cogidubnus]

Drawing water at 3am?

Well if McCarthy's shop were open to 3am (as we hear was sometimes the case) perhaps there was a counter or slab to wash down before they retired...or maybe pots and pans to wash up...or maybe they washed down the floor...There would certainly seem to be valid possibilities...

All the best

Dave

[Chava]

Why was he around at 3.00 am getting water from the pump?
It appears to have been one of his jobs, like a handyman, oddjob man, skivvy, or the like.

I doubt anyone needed water drawn at 3.00 am and if they did, in Millers Court, they could get it themselves. Also, he doesn't sound that old. I am interested in anyone who was seen or who claimed to be in the court in the small hours of that morning.

[Debra A]

I'm still musing over the idea of a newspaper reporter describing a Bowyer who was born in 1847, (so age 41), invalided out of the army, and shortly to die of Bright's Disease, as a young man...I somehow doubt anyone of that age living in Whitechapel in 1888 looked young...not to mention an invalided Indian army veteran with Brights...he'd surely have appeared somewhat grizzled at the very least, Grecian 2000 being still some years off!

I'm not doubting Debs/Chris's bod may well be the right one (indeed he sounds pretty good to me) but the newspaper account somehow doesn't quite ring true...as a matter of interest, which paper is it from please Debs?

Getting back on topic, if one accepts McCarthy as being blackmailed, one has to further ask how/why...If, for example, McCarthy is being blackmailed by Kelly over an illicit fling they'd had, it would explain why her arrears had been allowed to build up, why she could still get goods in the shop, why she had to go and why the distancing (via Bowyer) from the discovery...and if all this were indeed the case, why the disfigurements were so "personal"...it's all total speculation of course...but just about possible...

All the best

Dave

Hi Dave,
I suppose if the Echo reporter (the paper was the Echo of 14th Nov) was about 80 then he might call Bowyer a 'young' man.
As Jon says, the PIP illustration of Bowyer shows a man very similar to your vision of him!
It is a puzzle why he might be described as young.
It looks like McCarthy might have had one young man working for him in Nov 88- Henry Buckley, 21 in 1888.
Could there have been a mix up with names I wonder? No idea really, just a thought.

[Wickerman]

I'm still musing over the idea of a newspaper reporter describing a Bowyer who was born in 1847, (so age 41), invalided out of the army, and shortly to die of Bright's Disease, as a young man...I somehow doubt anyone of that age living in Whitechapel in 1888 looked young...not to mention an invalided Indian army veteran with Brights...he'd surely have appeared somewhat grizzled at the very least, Grecian 2000 being still some years off!

Sugden has a picture of him, looks a tad older than 41

[Wickerman]

Did he live in Millers Court?

No, or at least he has a Dorset St. address in a later census (if I'm remembering this correct), he only worked for McCarthy.

Why was he around at 3.00 am getting water from the pump?

It appears to have been one of his jobs, like a handyman, oddjob man, skivvy, or the like.

Thomas Bowyer has become a Person of Interest to me.

There's nothing suspicious about him is there? Just an old man doing his job.

Regards, Jon S.

[Cogidubnus]

Indian Harry

I'm still musing over the idea of a newspaper reporter describing a Bowyer who was born in 1847, (so age 41), invalided out of the army, and shortly to die of Bright's Disease, as a young man...I somehow doubt anyone of that age living in Whitechapel in 1888 looked young...not to mention an invalided Indian army veteran with Brights...he'd surely have appeared somewhat grizzled at the very least, Grecian 2000 being still some years off!

I'm not doubting Debs/Chris's bod may well be the right one (indeed he sounds pretty good to me) but the newspaper account somehow doesn't quite ring true...as a matter of interest, which paper is it from please Debs?

Getting back on topic, if one accepts McCarthy as being blackmailed, one has to further ask how/why...If, for example, McCarthy is being blackmailed by Kelly over an illicit fling they'd had, it would explain why her arrears had been allowed to build up, why she could still get goods in the shop, why she had to go and why the distancing (via Bowyer) from the discovery...and if all this were indeed the case, why the disfigurements were so "personal"...it's all total speculation of course...but just about possible...

All the best

Dave

[Barnaby]

Last year on a long car trip with nothing to do but entertain myself by thinking about Ripper suspects (well, I guess I had other things I could have done to pass the time but this was what was most entertaining - yikes!) I had convinced myself for about an hour that McCarthy was the killer of MJK. What bothered me most was the whole business of breaking down the door. Surely he had a key. And on the off-chance that he didn't, all things being equal he should have been the most motivated to look for another means of entrance (i.e., turning latch through window), as this was his property the police were about to destroy. Nevertheless, he let them knock down the door. Why? To me, this suggests he had something to hide and did not want to attract any attention to himself. And when confronted with a ghastly murder in a locked room, a man with a key or inside knowledge of how to gain entrance would be suspected.

But after additional thought I simply cannot see him as the killer for all of the reasons mentioned. I think he did have something to hide with respect to MJK - perhaps he was receiving sexual favors in exchange for rent or perhaps he was even running a prostitution ring himself - but I can't see him killing her in that style. My thoughts are similar to Miss Marple's a few pages back. McCarthy lived a very public long life in the East End and, to me, just doesn't fit the profile of either Jack or someone who would commit such acts as a copycat to silence an - at best - person of questionable credibility.

[Wickerman]

However, the article also mentions that Bowyer has now given Abberline a description of a man he saw in the Court on Friday morning-it's tempting to think Bowyers description might also have described a man with a dark moustache, isn't it? We also have the description of a young, respectable looking, well dressed man with a dark moustache seen with MJK at around 11pm outside the Britannia -a description seemingly given to a press association representative by John McCarthy.

Hello Debs.
It is intriguing that Bowyer claims to have seen a well-dressed man in the court Friday morning, that could hardly be Blotchy. And why does the article describe Bowyer as "young"?
There is only one other well-dressed man that we know of, the same man seen by Hutchinson.

McCarthy does appear to be repeating gossip because he also tells about Kelly singing at 1:00, a story told by Cox, so maybe McCarthy never saw this well-dressed man himself, someone else did?

All things considered, we seem to have a few well-dressed men hanging around between Thursday night into Friday morning, or the same man hovering, waiting for the best opportunity?

Regards, Jon S.

[Debra A]

Thanks Debra
I would say that this our "Indian Harry". If Bowyer was the ripper then this would explain the end of the murders (excluding mckenzie and Coles of course). Shortly after MKs murder he takes a turn for the worse from his disease and moves back to his hometown where he dies shortly thereafter.

It's a familiar argument - no different to a proposal that Timothy Donovan, Henry Hanslope, GH etc. was the Ripper,is it?.an unknown local... named.

[Chava]

Because whoever the Ripper was, I don't think MJK was his ideal victim. His 'type' seemed so specific apart from her

On that basis, it is equally possible to assume that MJK was NOT a victim of "Jack" at all.

Given the number of men we know of in MJK's life - Barnett, Flemming, Morgan Stone (?) we don't have to find others and guess at reasons for them wanting to kill her in a very personal way.

Phil

Well, yes. But that's always going to be the case with MJK. I don't think we can ever know for sure that she was a Ripper victim. I've been on the fence about that for years. Yes, she was killed in the same way but no, the Ripper did not take hearts, he took uteri. Yes, she was a prostitute, but no, she was nowhere near resembling the other four in circumstances, age or in appearance. (And they resemble each other closely in everything.) I could make a pretty good case for either side of this argument.

[Phil H]

Because whoever the Ripper was, I don't think MJK was his ideal victim. His 'type' seemed so specific apart from her

On that basis, it is equally possible to assume that MJK was NOT a victim of "Jack" at all.

Given the number of men we know of in MJK's life - Barnett, Flemming, Morgan Stone (?) we don't have to find others and guess at reasons for them wanting to kill her in a very personal way.

Phil

[Chava]

I have to say it's a good idea, and someone I never looked at before. I think the murders ended with MJK so it would make sense to me that the Ripper died shortly thereafter. Also it might explain the 'personal' aspect of the last murder. Bowyer would have known MJK. There could be a ton of reasons why he might have hated her enough to kill her in the way he had killed other women. She may even have suspected him of the murders and told him so. Because whoever the Ripper was, I don't think MJK was his ideal victim. His 'type' seemed so specific apart from her.

Did he live in Millers Court? Why was he around at 3.00 am getting water from the pump? Why did he say he was? And why does he not feature much in the police files, given that by his own account he was at the pump in Millers Court--which if I remember was basically outside MJK's window--at the putative time of the murder? Also, he was in the employ of McCarthy and may well have known about the missing key/getting in through the window. He definitely knew about the window as he drew the coat back to look into the room.

Thomas Bowyer has become a Person of Interest to me.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby.

The 1889 death date is based on the records of an army Chelsea Pensioner born 1847 in Clapham, looked at by both me and Chris Philips (the details appear on another thread somewhere) as a possible for Bowyer. This particular Thomas Bowyer served in India (as Bowyer reportedly did), and was pensioned out on ill health in 1886. He suffered from Bright's disease.

No trace can be found of this Thomas Bowyer after Nov. 1886, when he was discharged, but there is a death in Clapham of a man of the same name and age being buried April 27 1889 at the South Metropolitan Cemetery. His last known address being 4 The Polygon Clapham. This isn't a definite identification, however.

Thanks Debra
I would say that this our "Indian Harry". If Bowyer was the ripper then this would explain the end of the murders (excluding mckenzie and Coles of course). Shortly after MKs murder he takes a turn for the worse from his disease and moves back to his hometown where he dies shortly thereafter.

[Debra A]

Also, very interesting that your research shows that he may have died in
1889. Do you know what month?

Hi Abby.

The 1889 death date is based on the records of an army Chelsea Pensioner born 1847 in Clapham, looked at by both me and Chris Philips (the details appear on another thread somewhere) as a possible for Bowyer. This particular Thomas Bowyer served in India (as Bowyer reportedly did), and was pensioned out on ill health in 1886. He suffered from Bright's disease.

No trace can be found of this Thomas Bowyer after Nov. 1886, when he was discharged, but there is a death in Clapham of a man of the same name and age being buried April 27 1889 at the South Metropolitan Cemetery. His last known address being 4 The Polygon Clapham. This isn't a definite identification, however.