Bowyer in Miller's Court 3am day of murder?

[Debra Arif]

This mention of Bowyer being at the water-tap in Miller's Court at 3 am on the morning of MJK's murder is a new one on me.
The new A to Z mentions an 'unidentified man' seen with Mary Jane Kelly on the Wednesday previous to her death, and a description of him given by Bowyer, but I can't see mention of this other supposed encounter.

Here's a short transcription of the relevant bit, hopefully the full article will follow soon.

The Echo Wed. Nov. 14 1888

...Bowyer, the young man in Mr. McCarthy's employ was out at different times up Miller's-court on the Thursday night for the purpose of getting water from a tap there-the only available supply.Indeed, Bowyer vistited that spot as late-or, rather, as early-as three o'clock on the morning of the murder. This early visit to the water-tap is by no means an unfrequent thing, as Mr. Mccarthy's shop, which supplies the wants of a very poor and wretched locality, whose denziens are out at all hours, late and early, does not at times close until three o'clock in the morning,while occassionally it is open all night. Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid. Bowyer, who is known as "Indian Harry" has travelled a great deal, and formerly lived in India. He said to an Echo reporter this morning. "The murderer couldn't have come to a worse place (for escaping) than this court. There is only this narrow entrance, and If I had known he was there when I went to the water tap at three o'clock, I reckon he wouldn't have got off."

Mrs McCarthy is also quoted later in the article, claiming that Mary Jane Kelly had remarked to her, the day before her murder; "That dreadful man! Aint he a caution! I wonder who he'll have next."
Mrs. McCarthy also went on to say that one of her customers (she had forgotten which one)remarked to her on the morning of the murder, before the murder was discovered -"I saw such a funny man up the court this morning."

[How Brown]

Here is the complete article that Debra found in the Echo.

This is an extraordinary article in my view and obviously a great find by Debra. Its also the first time I recall it being posted on a Ripper website.

Proof once again that there are articles still out there.

I think this article should encourage us to re-examine Indian Harry Bowyer, ex-soldier.


The Echo
November 14,1888
Page 3
******
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Easter%202011/tb1.jpg
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Easter%202011/tb2.jpg
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Easter%202011/tb3.jpg
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Easter%202011/tb4.jpg
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Easter%202011/tb5.jpg
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Easter%202011/tb6.jpg

[Debra Arif]

Thanks for posting it How. XXX

Is "Indian Harry" still unidentified in the available records?

[How Brown]

Debs:

Do you mean that there ( I'm not up to speed on census or geneaological listings as I should be ) is some dispute as to who Indian Harry actually was ? I might be misinterpreting what you mean here,Debs.

Here we have a man who states he was present in the court when in all likelihood, the killer and Kelly were a few feet away....with that broken window.

This article has a lot of potential to it Debs.

[Debra Arif]

How, I was just going by the A to Z entry saying that Thomas Bowyer had not been identified in any census records, and wondered if that is still the case?

I wonder if he saw George Hutchinson?

[Robert Linford]

Debs, according to JTR Wiki he was a pauper inmate at Shoreditch Workhouse in 1891.

I remember when Bowyer was previously discussed, there seemed no agreement as to whether he was young or old.

[Debra Arif]

Thanks Robert, the birth and details that he was in Shoreditch workhouse are both taken from the 1891 census then?
If that age is correct, it seems odd that someone from the Echo obtained a quote from Bowyer but their paper still described him as a young man in the same article.

Does anyone know what the address of the Shoreditch Workhouse was? Was it the Kingsland Rd. one?

[Robert Linford]

Hi Debs

Shoreditch Workhouse was 213 Kingsland Rd and Reeves Place Hoxton.

Wiki might have got the ID wrong. I think there was also a Thomas Bowyer dying Shoreditch in 1901 age 51, which would have made him youngish in 1888.

[How Brown]

Quick in and out :

Is there a repository which has the records of men who served in India ?

[Debra Arif]

Hi Debs

Shoreditch Workhouse was 213 Kingsland Rd and Reeves Place Hoxton.

Wiki might have got the ID wrong. I think there was also a Thomas Bowyer dying Shoreditch in 1901 age 51, which would have made him youngish in 1888.


Thanks again, Robert.
I'll see if I can locate that workhouse record, I have a feeling that the records might be missing for that year though.

It's hard to tell from the illustration of him how old he might be isn't it?

[How Brown]

Thomas Bowyer

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Easter%202011/tbp.jpg

[Robert Linford]

I'd say he looks oldish, Debs, though it's all relative : he's a spring chicken compared with How.

[How Brown]

Back to Debra's find...

Does this change anyone's views in regard to Hutchinson's sighting & Astrakhan Man ?

Does anyone feel that if Bowyer had been where he claimed he was, he would have at least mentioned light emanating from her room ?

I'll be honest...I have a hard time figuring out how he couldn't have heard noises ( voices,movement,etc..) in the court considering the acoustics...but maybe thats just me.

How about anyone else ?

[Debra Arif]

When I read the article, my first thought, given this statement
'Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer', that Bowyer may have been the un-named witness reported in some newspapers as giving a description that George Hutchinson's later description of Astrakhan man, tallied with. But, as has been discussed many times, the papers that printed the story that there were two witness descriptions of the same man, one given by Hutchinson, were in error and were in fact the same account. Indeed, this Echo report says exactly that further down.
It also seems to dismiss blotchy's description, so I am wondering which description of the murderer Bowyer's description tallies with?

If what Bowyer said was true (but why wasn't a police statement taken from him if it was?), he must have been there very close to the time GH was there. Did he see GH?

[Chris_Scott]

Cracking article, Debs.
As far as I understand it, Bowyer has not been positively identified in any contemporary record. There is the question of his age. This article (amd others I have seen) refers to him as a young man but the drawing (if accurate) and the fact he was an ex-military suggest someone older. There is also (as in so many other instcnces in this case) more than one version of his name. It is usually given as Thomas Bowyer, but his forename is given as Henry or Harry and in a number of article I have seen his surname is rendered as Bower.
As to his address at the time of the murders, in the inquest he is reported to have said he was living at 37 Dorset Street.
The only Thomas Bowyer of an appropriate age I have traced is the workhouse one, but that was a very tentative identification. I have traced that individual back and he is consistently described as a watchmaker except for 1891.
The 1891 records reads:
Shoreditch Workhouse
Thomas Bowyer
Pauper
Aged 68
Born Mitcham, Surrey
Widower
Local porter (retired)

[Chris_Scott]

Here is the same individual in 1871:
1 Sawyer Place, St Luke, Finsbury
Head: Thomas Bowyer (Widower) aged 48 born Mitcham, Surrey - Watch maker / Dial painter
Daughter: Sarah Bowyer aged 20 born St Lukes
Son: John Bowyer aged 17 born St Lukes - Wood cutter

[Chris_Scott]

Baptism:
Parish Church of Mitcham in Surrey
When Baptized: 5 May 1822
Christian Name: Thomas
Parents: Thomas and Sarah Bowyer
Abode: Mitcham
Trade of father: Cutter

[Chris_Scott]

Thomas Bowyer:

Census Records:

1841
Aged 19
Living St Luke, Middlesex

1851
Age 29
Living at 13 Radcliff Row, St Luke
Father: Thomas
Wife: Sarah (born 1823)
Children: Mary Martha aged 6, John aged 2

1881
Living in Shoreditch
53 Monyer Street, Hoxton
Aged 59

[Chris_Scott]

From the census records we learn two things
1) Bowyer married some time between 1841 and 1851
2) His wife's name was Sarah
There would seem to be only one applicable record:
1844
Quarter 2 (April - June)
St George in the East
His wife's maiden name was Sarah Allen
His wife was certainly dead by the time of the 1871 census, when Thomas is listed with two children as a widower.

[Debra Arif]

Hi Chris, thanks for all this info.
The only thing I would ask, this Thomas Bowyer doesn't seem to have spent any time as a soldier at all does he? As you mentioned earlier that you took into account his army service to locate someone of the right age (if I'm understanding what you were saying correctly...apologies if I haven't), doesn't this man seem to go against all that is known, apart from a perceived age for "Indian Harry" based on his having been in the military? Or am I just not following properly?...which wouldn't be unusual for me :)

[How Brown]

Ditto to Debs' remarks about the additional info,amigo.

He's 66 in 1888 which makes the "young man" remark ( Walter Dew likewise referred to him as a young man and 'the youth" in I Caught Crippen ) in the Echo a very strange one.

Also no mention of service in the military in what Chris provided.

[Chris_Scott]

Hi How
Regarding possible military service, as far as I know he has not been traced in the 1861 census so this could be when he was away but I have to look into this deeper to find his wife and kids to verify that he was absent
Chris

Debs
I would emphasise that i consider this identification tenative in the extreme. In fact the reason I first posted about him way back was he was the ONLY person I could find of the name of Thomas Bowyer whose age would permit of calling him a pensioner and who seemed to have links with the East End area. The fact that he was in Shoreditch in 1891 and described as a retired local porter seemed to fit McCarthy's man. There is NO proof that this watchmaker Bowyer had any army service let alone had been to India, but as I said above, there is still work to be done for the period 1851 to 1871 and also I have yet to find when his wife died.
IF this TB was Mccarthy's man it means he would have been 66 years of age at the time of the Kelly murder (born early 1822)

[Stephen Thomas]

The Echo Wed. Nov. 14 1888

...Bowyer, the young man in Mr. McCarthy's employ was out at different times up Miller's-court on the Thursday night for the purpose of getting water from a tap there-the only available supply.Indeed, Bowyer vistited that spot as late-or, rather, as early-as three o'clock on the morning of the murder. This early visit to the water-tap is by no means an unfrequent thing, as Mr. Mccarthy's shop, which supplies the wants of a very poor and wretched locality, whose denziens are out at all hours, late and early, does not at times close until three o'clock in the morning,while occassionally it is open all night. Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid. Bowyer, who is known as "Indian Harry" has travelled a great deal, and formerly lived in India. He said to an Echo reporter this morning. "The murderer couldn't have come to a worse place (for escaping) than this court. There is only this narrow entrance, and If I had known he was there when I went to the water tap at three o'clock, I reckon he wouldn't have got off."

Mrs McCarthy is also quoted later in the article, claiming that Mary Jane Kelly had remarked to her, the day before her murder; "That dreadful man! Aint he a caution! I wonder who he'll have next."
Mrs. McCarthy also went on to say that one of her customers (she had forgotten which one)remarked to her on the morning of the murder, before the murder was discovered -"I saw such a funny man up the court this morning."

Well found, Debra. Part of this well written article everybody here knows already but the new bits are fascinating. Timewise it could well have been Hutchinson who Bowyer saw (if he was telling the truth) as Hutch himself states that he wandered into the court shortly before 3am. Mrs McCarthy's hearsay quote from Mary Kelly is a nice example of East End LVP speech patterns. And the statement that the lodging house lights of Dorset Street were turned off at 3am tallies with the comment by Mrs Prater that the lodging house light outside her window (Room 20 overlooking Dorset Street ho ho ho) gave her some timescale within her drunken slumbers. And hey, didn't Hutchinson bugger off at 3am?

Maybe Dorset Street suddenly got dark and boring at that time.

[Chris_Scott]

Here's the actual details of the 1881 entry:

1881:
53 Monyer Street, Hoxton, Shoreditch
Head: Thomas Bowyer (Unmarried) aged 58 born Mitcham - Watch maker
Son: William Osborn Bowyer aged 23 born Shoreditch - Porter
Lodger:
Frederick Clitherow aged 38 born Shoreditch - Compositor

[Debra Arif]

Hi How
Regarding possible military service, as far as I know he has not been traced in the 1861 census so this could be when he was away but I have to look into this deeper to find his wife and kids to verify that he was absent
Chris

Debs
I would emphasise that i consider this identification tenative in the extreme. In fact the reason I first posted about him way back was he was the ONLY person I could find of the name of Thomas Bowyer whose age would permit of calling him a pensioner and who seemed to have links with the East End area. The fact that he was in Shoreditch in 1891 and described as a retired local porter seemed to fit McCarthy's man. There is NO proof that this watchmaker Bowyer had any army service let alone had been to India, but as I said above, there is still work to be done for the period 1851 to 1871 and also I have yet to find when his wife died.
IF this TB was Mccarthy's man it means he would have been 66 years of age at the time of the Kelly murder (born early 1822)


Thanks for the explanation Chris.
Would an army pensioner necessarily be of 'normal' pensionable age I wonder?

[Debra Arif]

Chris, because I recalled I have a 40ish year old 'Chelsea Pensioner' in my family tree (can't remember the exact age offhand) I just checked the 1881 census using the different keywords "chelsea pensioner" and "army pensioner" and came across a few military pensioners who were quite young, one was 25!

[Wicker Man]

Does this change anyone's views in regard to Hutchinson's sighting & Astrakhan Man ?...

Well, this sentence certainly jumps out and smacks you in the mouth...

"..Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid..."

Especially as there is no existing police document to this effect.

However, exactly 3:00 would present a problem with Mr Astrakhan, it's too late for Bowyer to witness Kelly & Astrakhan entering No. 13 (that was roughly 2:15, according to Hutch).
And, it might be too early to see Mr Astrakhan sneaking out after her murder.

On the other hand, I don't recall Blotchy's description ever being circulated as official police opinion as the supposed description of the murderer.
However, the description of Astrakhan was circulated as such, at least HO 144/221 A49301C, f 263, makes that claim.

So perhaps Bowyer's trip to the water tap was not precisely at 3:00 am?

Regards, Jon S.

[Wicker Man]

Darn ....I jumped the gun there, thats not what was said!

Bowyer didn't claim to see a man at 3:00am (sorry), the article begins with this:
".....Bowyer, the young man in Mr. McCarthy's employ was out at different times up Miller's-court on the Thursday night for the purpose of getting water from a tap there-the only available supply..."

"At different times..."

So Bowyer's claim to have seen a man "early" on Friday morning does not give a time,...

"Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer..."

Bowyer must have seen him before 3:00am, because a subsequent statement reads:

"and If I had known he was there when I went to the water tap at three o'clock, I reckon he wouldn't have got off."

Which I take to mean,... if I had known he was STILL there when I went to the water tap...

Bowyer claimed to have made more than one trip over Thursday night through Friday morning. We may be allowed to conclude his sighting of the 'man' was at an earlier trip, not the 3:00am trip, he didn't claim to see anyone at that particular time.

Caveat: We might have to take issue with the sighting being termed "Thursday night" or possibly "Friday morning" ?

Regards, Jon S.
(thats a great find Debra)

[Robert Linford]

This business about the tap has a bearing on the argument that he was stalking Kelly, or at least was a local man, who picked virtually the first night that Kelly was alone in the room. It means that he also picked the room next to the water supply. Not a problem one might think, unless the folks nearby are in the habit of drawing water in the middle of the night.

[Debra Arif]

Does anyone know, when Bowyer reported seeing a man with Mary Jane Kelly on the Wednesday of the week she was murdered (peculiar eyes, dark moustache..the man not MJK), and he corresponded to the description given by Packer, apparently, was that also in Miller's Court?

[Rob Clack]

Does anyone know, when Bowyer reported seeing a man with Mary Jane Kelly on the Wednesday of the week she was murdered (peculiar eyes, dark moustache..the man not MJK), and he corresponded to the description given by Packer, apparently, was that also in Miller's Court?

Hi Debs,

Nice find as always.

I found this in The Standard, Monday 12 November 1888. I've seen it in another paper (the IPN?).

9237

Rob

[Debra Arif]

Thank Rob, that's the one mentioned in the A to Z, I was wondering if there was any account that stated the place Bowyer saw them on that Wednesday.

[John Savage]

Hi Debra,

An interesting find and thanks for sharing.

I note that this article mentions that "Indian Harry has travelled a great deal and formally lived in India". We seem to take in for granted that this means that Indian Harry served as a soldier in India, and indeed that is how he is described in the A-Z. However it might be worth remembering that many British people lived and worked in India providing skills that were not to be found in that country, the raliways for instance relied on workers from Britain that were skilled engineers.

Rgds
John

[Wicker Man]

Hi Debs,

Nice find as always.

I found this in The Standard, Monday 12 November 1888. I've seen it in another paper (the IPN?).

9237

Rob

That is rather interesting, this report is published before Hutchinson walked into Commercial St. Police station.

P.S.
Found alternate source in The Western Mail, Cardiff.


Harry Bowyer states that on Wednesday night he saw a man speaking to Kelly who resembled the description given by the fruiterer of the supposed Berner Street murderer. He was, perhaps, 27 or 28 and had a dark moustache and very peculiar eyes. His appearance was rather smart and attention was drawn to him by his showing very white cuffs and a rather long white collar, the ends of which came down in front over a black coat. He did not carry a bag.

http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/thomas-bowyer.html

[Debra Arif]

Hi Debra,

An interesting find and thanks for sharing.

I note that this article mentions that "Indian Harry has travelled a great deal and formally lived in India". We seem to take in for granted that this means that Indian Harry served as a soldier in India, and indeed that is how he is described in the A-Z. However it might be worth remembering that many British people lived and worked in India providing skills that were not to be found in that country, the raliways for instance relied on workers from Britain that were skilled engineers.

Rgds
John

Thanks John, good point.

Where does the statement that Thomas Bowyer was 'a pensioner from the Indian Army' originate from, just out of interest, anyone?

[Wicker Man]

'Aitch!
That newspaper extract you posted that Debs located in post #2 says more than I first thought.
Read the beginning again...

"What is said to be a full and accurate description of the man last seen with Kelly is asserted to be in possession of the authorities. That description was given them the other night by George Hutchinson, a Groom by trade, but now working as a labourer.
The importance of this description lies (so says the morning papers) in the fact that it agrees with that furnished to the police yesterday, but which was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner. There is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson's veracity."

This article begins by stating that Hutchinson's description (of Astrakhan) agrees with another description given by someone who attended the Inquest, but failed to mention the description at the Inquest. Hutch was not at the Inquest, but Bowyer was!

Is this other description the one reported by Bowyer?

That they saw the same man?

Regards, Jon S.

[How Brown]

Wick:

Thats what it sounds like to me, old bean.

That it was Bowyer who provided a description first which Hutchinson's description jibed with is what it sounds like to me.

You've got to wonder if these two met up with each other before Hutchinson went to the police on the 12th.

On one hand, if these two didn't meet up...then maybe Bowyer's description was found out by Hutchinson....which might suggest that Hutchinson merely parroted Bowyer's description of the gent with Kelly....if Hutchinson approached the police for some self-serving motive.

Yet, on the other hand, maybe Hutchinson's description ( since it seems to corroborate Bowyer's in any event) wasn't an elaborate
fabrication after all...regardless of whether they met up at all....and Hutchinson,motive or not, was stating a fact about who he saw and what he wore.

[How Brown]

It appears Bowyer ( correct me if I'm wrong ) was believed to have seen the same individual, also in the early morning, but afterwards, that Hutchinson is alleged to have seen with Kelly or actually did see.

However, Bowyer approached the police prior to Hutchinson, yet did not make any reference ( perhaps because the police asked him not to ? ) at the Inquest along the lines of what Hutchinson did outside of the Inquest.

Two key statements from the article Debra located :

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Easter%202011/hut.jpghttp://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Easter%202011/hut2.jpg

[How Brown]

Wick:

I placed a link over yonder per your request...and pointed out that Debra found this gem.

[How Brown]

When Debs started the thread and as I read several segments of the article, quite a few scenarios went through my head. I wrote down notes furiously and wound up not being able to decipher them. Par for my course.

Such as...

Could Hutchinson's decision to approach the police on the 12th been influenced by the knowledge that Bowyer had approached them first....and that this might have been more of a motivation than Hutchinson feeling he had been spied on the street ?

Its claimed that ( it might or might not be a fact, I don't have the relevant text in front of me at the moment...someone who does know, please chime in ) Hutchinson had traipsed the neighborhood in search of the Astrakhan Man.
Why isn't it mentioned anywhere whether that the police did the same with Bowyer ( or did they ?)

The time frame : Hutchinson claims he was on the spot at 2 AM, leaving at 2:45 or so ( ballpark figure )...since he says he stayed for 45 minutes.
When did Bowyer get to the tap ? He claims in the Echo article to have been there at 3 AM.

When it is stated that he saw the man "early on Friday morning..", was it around 3 AM when Bowyer was at the tap ?

[Wicker Man]

...You've got to wonder if these two met up with each other before Hutchinson went to the police on the 12th.


Because Hutch admits to being there that night (and was seen?), it's not necessary for him to conspire with anyone.
I guess some of us have to rethink this thing....

The reference to Packer (in Bowyers statement) is understandable as all the previous suspect sightings offer descriptions of lower class individuals, Shabby-genteel, Deerstalker with overcoat, appearance of a Sailor, etc.

Only Packer saw a 'Suit', not that it is the same man that Packer saw, but Packer's description had to be the obvious one the authorities would associate Bowyer's description to.
Before Hutch came forward...

Regards, Jon S.

[How Brown]

Wick:

Nina is,at present, chastising me and is emphatic ( bringing up the A-Z reference) that Bowyer claimed he saw the chap on Wednesday, not Thursday evening/Friday morning. I goofed. Trying too hard...

So scratch anything I mentioned about Bowyer & Hutch seeing him on the same night/early morning...because Bowyer doesn't say he saw him on that night/early morning.

[Wicker Man]

Aitch, don't panic.
Bowyer saw a well-dressed individual Wednesday night.

Over night Thurs-Fri he states he went to the water tap in the yard "at different times".
At some point he said he saw a man who fit the description of the murderer - no time given, see my post:
http://jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=133935&postcount=28

Only then does Bowyer realise that "if he had known HE was still with Kelly at 3:00am, he would have done for him, so to speak...

The possibility exists that the man Bowyer saw Wednesday night was the same as the one he saw Thursday night-Fri, the one he described to the police.

Regards, Jon S.

[Phil Carter]

Aitch, don't panic.
Bowyer saw a well-dressed individual Wednesday night.

Over night Thurs-Fri he states he went to the water tap in the yard "at different times".
At some point he said he saw a man who fit the description of the murderer - no time given, see my post:
http://jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=133935&postcount=28

Only then does Bowyer realise that "if he had known HE was still with Kelly at 3:00am, he would have done for him, so to speak...

The possibility exists that the man Bowyer saw Wednesday night was the same as the one he saw Thursday night-Fri, the one he described to the police.

Regards, Jon S.

Hello Jon,

This raises all sorts of questions.. and two I have to wonder is this... IF Bowyer is telling the truth with his story here.. all sorts of people heard all sorts of noises, sounds etc during the early hours of that night... but nobody hears Bowyer going to the water pump and pumping water at various times during the night. Why?

Another thing.. is IF Bowyer was doing this, and IF the murder took place during that time.. he would have seen that a fire was burning in the room the minute he turned around and headed back to the shop' s (back?) entrance from the court. But he never mentioned it. Why?

For me this confirms that the murder, fireplace ablaze and all, didnt happen until later. Either that.. or Bowyer is embellishing his part in the story.

Just who amongst all the other witnesses do you believe if he is telling the truth then?

best wishes

Phil

[Wicker Man]

We're here to debate this Phil, and there's a hell of a lot to debate with this new finding.
If Bowyer is lying, it is strange that his story was given to the police before Hutch came forward.
Of course, it would have been nice to have been given an actual description from Bowyer, but I think Debra is still looking...

What concerns me, if Bowyers Friday-man is the same as his Wednesday-man, does that mean Kelly knew her killer?

[Phil Carter]

We're here to debate this Phil, and there's a hell of a lot to debate with this new finding.
If Bowyer is lying, it is strange that his story was given to the police before Hutch came forward.
Of course, it would have been nice to have been given an actual description from Bowyer, but I think Debra is still looking...

What concerns me, if Bowyers Friday-man is the same as his Wednesday-man, does that mean Kelly knew her killer?

Hello Jon,

Yes, I agree. That last point is another one that raises it's head too. This whole thing could raise a whole host of questions all round.

Our view of the Millers Court murder could be turned on it's head here. I just hope it's a tentative missing link. Very, very interesting indeed and kudos to those involved in its findings.

best wishes

Phil

[Wicker Man]

This statement is common and appended to the description given by Hutchinson in a handful of papers from Nov 13th.

This description, which confirms that given by others of the person seen in company with the deceased on the morning she was killed, is much fuller in detail than that hitherto in the possession of the police.

There is now a real need to locate the source of this frequently appearing footnote.

Regards, Jon S.

[Debra Arif]

'Aitch!
That newspaper extract you posted that Debs located in post #2 says more than I first thought.
Read the beginning again...

"What is said to be a full and accurate description of the man last seen with Kelly is asserted to be in possession of the authorities. That description was given them the other night by George Hutchinson, a Groom by trade, but now working as a labourer.
The importance of this description lies (so says the morning papers) in the fact that it agrees with that furnished to the police yesterday, but which was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner. There is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson's veracity."

This article begins by stating that Hutchinson's description (of Astrakhan) agrees with another description given by someone who attended the Inquest, but failed to mention the description at the Inquest. Hutch was not at the Inquest, but Bowyer was!

Is this other description the one reported by Bowyer?

That they saw the same man?

Regards, Jon S.


Hi Jon,
I had the exact same thoughts when I first read the article, I posted as much in post #14.
I changed my mind when reading the next paragraph in the same article though. Doesn't it say that the two descriptions (one more elaborate than the other) originate from the same source, i.e. Hutchinson? That's how I interpreted it.


..The importance of this description lies (so says the morning papers) in the fact that it agrees with that furnished to the police yesterday, but was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest in a more offical manner..

Unfortunately for the theories of our morning contempiraries, we learned on inquiry at at the Commercial-street Police-station to-day that the elaborate description given above is virtually the same as that previously published. It is a little fuller, that is all. But it proceeds from the same source...

[Debra Arif]

Nina is,at present, chastising me and is emphatic ( bringing up the A-Z reference) that Bowyer claimed he saw the chap on Wednesday, not Thursday evening/Friday morning.

Well said, Nina! :thumb:
Bowyer's description of a man with MJK, 'resembling the murderer' (in that it was similar to the description of the man seen in Berner Street by Packer) was a sighting on the Wednesday night, previous to the murder and is well known. There was even controversy over that statement as Bowyer originally said he had last seen MJK on Wednesday afternoon.

The Echo piece claims Bowyer had given a description of a man he saw in the court Thurs night/Fri morning, but doesn't print that description or say it tallies with any other sighting of the murderer as far as I can see. [edit to say scrap the last few words, it does actually say Bowyer's description of the man tallies with that of the murderer, missed that bit!]

That the description given by Hutchinson was supposedly previously reported by someone else, I have explained in my previous post. I believe the Echo article is correct, and both these description, reported as two seperate sightings, were both given by Hutchinson.

[Wicker Man]

Hi Jon,
I had the exact same thoughts when I first read the article, I posted as much in post #14.
I changed my mind when reading the next paragraph in the same article though. Doesn't it say that the two descriptions (one more elaborate than the other) originate from the same source, i.e. Hutchinson? That's how I interpreted it.


Hi Debra.
Yes, I did see the "same source" reference, but what I think we are supposed to understand is that the later-in-time description given by Hutchinson, came from the same earlier source, that is, Bowyer.

In other words, the description is still valid, but nothing much of value can be taken from the 2nd account by Hutchinson. Whether Hutch simply repeated what Bowyer might have told him, or Hutch did see the same man as he claims, is immaterial.
The article continues by stating:
"....they think it sufficiently significant to induce them to make it the subject of careful inquiry"

The article (posted by Aitch on post #2) then proceeds to give Bowyer's earlier (initial source?) account, which is then supported by the account of Mrs McCarthy, who it is stated, "... gives a slight clue as to a person who was seen in the court early on Friday morning, as one of her customers remarked to her - before the murder was known - " I saw such a funny man up the Court this morning".

Mrs McCarthy says she has been so worried by the shocking affair that she cannot now remember the customer who thus spoke to her.

I am not confident that the above allows us to dismiss these Friday morning sightings as a mistake for Wednesday's sightings.

This man may have been there twice for all we know.

Incidently, I would not make an issue between "afternoon" and "night". This is an extremely slender thread to argue with. Especially when the day "Wednesday" is the same in both accounts.

All the best, and thankyou for your efforts.
Regards, Jon S.

P.S. if you look at that article on post #2, 10 lines above the section entitled, OTHER FACTS AND SURMISES, the report says Bowyer's description was "previously published".
I wonder, are you looking for this?

[Debra Arif]

P.S. if you look at that article on post #2, 10 lines above the section entitled, OTHER FACTS AND SURMISES, the report says Bowyer's description was "previously published".
I wonder, are you looking for this?

Jon, It's a bit late for me, so I'm just copying over a post I made on casebook, that explains my suggestion of what the Echo might be saying in more detail, and my attempt at explaining what the "previously published" report might be refering to:


The Echo 14th November 1888 says:

..The importance of this description lies (so says the morning papers) in the fact that it agrees with that furnished to the police yesterday, but was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest in a more offical manner..


Daily News 14th november 1888-which I believe was a morning paper?

THE MAN LAST SEEN WITH KELLY
FULL AND DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The following important statement was made last evening by George Hutchinson, a groom by trade, but now working as a labourer. Hutchinson said...
[Astrachan's description then given]

...It will be observed that the description of the supposed murderer given by Hutchinson agrees in every particular with that already furnished by the police, and published yesterday morning. There is not the slightest reason to doubt Hutchinson's veracity, and it is therefore highly probable that at length the police are in possession of a reliable description of the murderer.

On the 13th November, the Daily News published the details of a sighting in Miller's Court and a description of Astrachan, but without naming Hutchinson. [witness is said to be a man of the labouring class, of military appearance]


The Echo 14th November 1888

Unfortunately for the theories of our morning contempiraries, we learned on inquiry at at the Commercial-street Police-station to-day that the elaborate description given above is virtually the same as that previously published. It is a little fuller, that is all. But it proceeds from the same source...

[Debra Arif]

I guess my interpretation didn't go down too well? :)


Incidently, I would not make an issue between "afternoon" and "night". This is an extremely slender thread to argue with. Especially when the day "Wednesday" is the same in both accounts.


One thing I do find puzzling is the publishing of Bowyer's description of a man seen in MJK's company on Wednesday night. It wasn't the last time she was seen alive, and as she was known to be a prostitute, why would a sighting of her with a man on the Wednesday night be significant?
At the inquest, Bowyer was asked when he last saw Mary Jane alive, he stated that it was Wednesday afternoon. He didn't mention he'd seen her with a man on that occassion. Did he later claim he had seen her on the Friday in the company of a man, didn't mention it at the inquest and then the mix up of days came, due to the inquest testimony he gave?
..In this respect I can see where you are coming from with your views, Jon.


This is just Debs view of course, no need to pay any attention until it is endorsed by someone else! ;)

[Wicker Man]

Content removed, sorry Debs.
(I posted it to the wrong forum)

Regards, Jon

[Debra Arif]

That's a totally different argument and nothing to do with this though!

[How Brown]

Debs,Wick...

Take a gander at the attachment and please tell me what you make of the highlighted sections.
I ask this in order that those just "tuning in" can hit the ground running with the discussion. So much is being said and with other newspapers being brought up, it can be confusing.

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Easter%202011/bow.jpg
Keeping Hutchinson and his visit to the police station on the 12th out of the mix for the time being...

A. Do either of you, or Rob Clack, Chris Scott, Mr. Begg, Cris or anyone else.... feel this is an accurate report or accounting of Bowyer not only being in Miller's Court at the tap at 3 AM on November 9th ( Friday)...but also that the remarks about him seeing a man on Friday ( 9th ) morning whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer are accurate as well ?

B. If so, then whose description of the supposed murderer is Bowyer's description stated to corroborate....Hutchinson's of Monday, November 12th...or Bowyer's own reflections on the man he is said to have seen on November 7th, two days before Kelly was murdered ?

C. Does anyone feel that Bowyer, whose remarks about seeing a man have been provided earlier by Rob Clack and appeared in the Standard on Monday, November 12th...saw this same individual twice ( Wed. the 7th and Friday the 9th ) but simply did not say so or that the issue was not broached ?

D. If you find flaws or anything out of order in this article, would you please reiterate what those contentious parts are ?

I appreciate it. I ask this in order that people who are a little ahead of the pack in regard to the Astrakhan Man saga can help get others, such as myself, on the same playing field.

Thank you.

[Chris Scott]

Hi How
My initial and overwhelming reaction is this:
The implications of a 3 am nocturnal visit by Bowyer to the tap in Millers Court raises two critical points
1) The location of the tap was right outisde Kelly's room
2) 3 am is crucal in that falls within the commonly accepted timeframe for when the murder and mutilation were being committed

I find it hard to believe that information this crucial, especially if, as the article says, it had been conveyed to Abberline, did not emerge at the inquest two says earlier.

A fascinating find, this article and one of which I am sure we have not heard the last.

Another point which How often emphasises:
This article is not from some obscure paper no one has heard of but a well known London paper already well gone through by researchers. Even sources that we think have been worked out can still throw up surprises.

[Debra Arif]

It's difficult to weigh up really, How.
It would be interesting to know where Bowyer supposedly saw MJK and the man he gave the description of, on the Wednesday night before her murder, the description published in the papers of the 12th.
The A to Z says that occured in Miller's Court but I can't seem to find any other sources that confirm that, not to say there isn't one, just that I can't find one. Can anyone else?
If Bowyer didn't mention this Wednesday night sighting at the inquest, or report it officially, who released the description to the press on the 12th I wonder? And could the same thing have happened again with a Friday morning sighting?

[How Brown]

Debs:

I know its a tough call...and thats why I went back and asked the question that Chris answered afterwards to gauge other's perceptions of what the Echo claims.. On the surface, you see the Echo clearly stating that Bowyer being in the court on Friday morning....and stating it twice.

I tried for a while last night to locate anything else ( as I'm sure you and Chris and a whole host of others probably did ) which corroborates the Echo's story to no avail, obviously,otherwise I'd have played hookey from work today.

Without defeating the whole purpose of my asking whether anyone believes the Echo was reporting this information in succinct fashion....what I have considered is if it were true, why on Earth wasn't Bowyer more of a prominent figure then as Hutchinson has become in Ripperology ? That's for another discussion, just disregard it.

Thanks for the response, Debs.

XXX

[Wicker Man]

...
A. Do either of you, or Rob Clack, Chris Scott, Mr. Begg, Cris or anyone else.... feel this is an accurate report or accounting of Bowyer not only being in Miller's Court at the tap at 3 AM on November 9th ( Friday)...but also that the remarks about him seeing a man on Friday ( 9th ) morning whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer are accurate as well ?

Aitch.
Whose to say if it is accurate, I think the implication is that Bowyer periodically ventured to the tap in the yard opposite Kelly's windows to fetch water.
He did this frequently on Thursday night up until midnight, and also Friday morning up until closing time at the shop, ie; 3:00am.
That Bowyer visited the water tap at 3:00am is specifically stated, but what actual time he saw this 'man' is not stated.
Later in the article Bowyer says, "...IF I had known he was still there at 3:00am", so from this we can deduce he must have seen the man (no mention of Kelly) sometime before 3:00am.


...
B. If so, then whose description of the supposed murderer is Bowyer's description stated to corroborate....Hutchinson's of Monday, November 12th...or Bowyer's own reflections on the man he is said to have seen on November 7th, two days before Kelly was murdered ?

What intrigues me is the later mention in the same article by Mrs McCarthy that one of her customers also saw "a funny man up the Court".
Why "funny"? - does she mean a "funny looking man", like one who was dressed funny for this location, like over dressed, posh?


...
C. Does anyone feel that Bowyer, whose remarks about seeing a man have been provided earlier by Rob Clack and appeared in the Standard on Monday, November 12th...saw this same individual twice ( Wed. the 7th and Friday the 9th ) but simply did not say so or that the issue was not broached ?

We must allow for that possibility. Which then raises further questions, none the least, what/who was he looking for?
Not a drink of water, I'll bet.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wicker Man]

.... why on Earth wasn't Bowyer more of a prominent figure then as Hutchinson has become in Ripperology ?

Aitch.
That thought crossed my mind too, and so I looked for press reports of this troublesome description which were unsourced. Not specifically stated who they came from.
Thats when it occured to me the A-Z described Bowyer as an "Indian Army pensioner"...., but now he is working for McCarthy, labouring?

That generic description ran through my mind,...
"A man, apparently of the labouring class, with a military appearance, who knew the deceased,..."

I thought, good grief, we've typically associated this with Hutchinson, yet if we think about it, we can also apply it to Bowyer!

Here, in the Penny Illustrated Paper, Nov. 17th, they give this same description of Astrachan, beginning with:
"A man, apparently of the labouring class, with a military appearance, who knew the deceased,..."

Yet, the last sentence reads:
"The description is confirmed by a man named George Hutchinson, who knew Mary Kelly, and who saw her enter Miller's court with this well dressed man between two and three a.m. on Nov.9."

:eek:

False alarm.... in THIS case, just sloppy reporting, but just goes to show we cannot take anything for granted.

Regards, Jon S.

[Debra Arif]

Aitch.
That thought crossed my mind too, and so I looked for press reports of this troublesome description which were unsourced. Not specifically stated who they came from.
Thats when it occured to me the A-Z described Bowyer as an "Indian Army pensioner"...., but now he is working for McCarthy, labouring?

That generic description ran through my mind,...
"A man, apparently of the labouring class, with a military appearance, who knew the deceased,..."

I thought, good grief, we've typically associated this with Hutchinson, yet if we think about it, we can also apply it to Bowyer!

Here, in the Penny Illustrated Paper, Nov. 17th, they give this same description of Astrachan, beginning with:
"A man, apparently of the labouring class, with a military appearance, who knew the deceased,..."

Yet, the last sentence reads:
"The description is confirmed by a man named George Hutchinson, who knew Mary Kelly, and who saw her enter Miller's court with this well dressed man between two and three a.m. on Nov.9."

:eek:

False alarm.... in THIS case, just sloppy reporting, but just goes to show we cannot take anything for granted.

Regards, Jon S.

That's a line I also followed up on, just to be certain, and it would work...if only the Echo hadn't specifically said that they had made inquiries at the police station and the two description, thought by the morning papers to be two separate witness sighting, came from the same source...I can't read 'coming from the same source' as any other way than they both originated with Hutchinson.

The section on Bowyer and Mrs McCarthy and the quotes from them are a separate section of the article. If the Echo knew that Bowyer's description of the man he saw corroborated Hutchinson's, wouldn't they have just said that in the first paragraph, rather than all the cloak and dagger stuff further into the article?

[Colin Roberts]

I found Bowyer in the census returns without too much difficulty. He was living in one of McCarthy's Dorset Street properties, was defined as a 'servant', and was in his mid-fifties at the time of the murders. To be honest, I'm at a loss to understand the difficulty in locating him - particularly when a researcher of Chris Scott's calibre has been on the trail.

--- Click Here, to View the Original Post, in Casebook.org (http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=173673#post173673) ---

I have perused the 1881 and 1891 census records, covering the entirety of the north side of Dorset Street (inclusive of Little Paternoster Row, New Court, and Miller's Court). I did not see a 'Bowyer'.

I suppose a person could have been enumerated as a 'Servant', under the 'Profession or Occupation' heading; but, Thomas Bowyer would not have been enumerated as such, under the 'Relation to Head of Family' heading, unless he had been living, specifically, at 27 Dorset Street, with the McCarthy family.

I am inclined to believe that Mr. Wroe has confused his recollections.

[How Brown]

Thanks for that Colin...because Nina has looked for Bowyer as well to no avail.

[Debra Arif]

And I have searched too, the same way Colin did (thanks for the confirmation Colin)...we can't all have missed him surely?

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

I even checked the records of the Latterday Saints, which is admittedly incomplete.. there are a few that might be.. but too vague.

best wishes

Phil

[Chris Scott]

With regards to queries about Bowyer's status as an army pensioner

Thomas Bowyer
Status as an army pensioner

Daily Telegraph
10 Nov 1888
McCarthy instructed his man, John Bowyer, a pensioned soldier, to call for the money due, the deceased woman having been 29s in arrear.

St James Gazette
10 Nov 1888
it was a pensioned soldier named John Bowyer, in M'Carthy's service, who discovered the murder.

Thanks to Chris on Casebook for these references.
I am wondering under which forename Gary Wroe found a reference which he took to be McCarthy's man. I have seen Bowyer listed as Thomas, Tom, Thos., Harry, Henry and in these two articles he is referred to as John.

[Debra Arif]

Hi Chris,
Was it his status as an army pensioner that was in question, or specifically an 'Indian army pensioner'?

[Chris Scott]

Hi Debs
This is what I was saying in an earlier post, that Im sure the mentions of him being a "pensioned solder" and having lived in India got conflated into his being an "Indian Army pensioner."
Whether that was true or not is another matter. His living in India and being a pensioned soldier might be quite separate events.

[Debra Arif]

Thanks Chris, just checking, :) as you know, I agree totally with that reasoning. I just wondered who had questioned about him being 'just' an army pensioner, John Savage also made a point about this earlier in the thread.

McCarthy's long time 'servant', living at one of his addresses (27 Dorset St) was 'Henry Buckley', himself convicted of a stabbing incident at 35 Dorset St in 1888.

[Wicker Man]

The possibility of two Bowyer's had not escaped me either, father & son?, Thomas & Henry? - perhaps suitable cause for confusion?

Regards, Jon S.

[Debra Arif]

perhaps confused in earlier reports as Mrs McCarthy and son, out rent collecting on Friday morning?

[How Brown]

If Bowyer did have a son.....
It might explain why the one newspaper refers to Bowyer as a young man.

[Chris Scott]

Hi guys
The very earliest reports of Kelly's circumstances are so garbled and so far removed from the truth that I don't think that ANY credence can be placed on them or read into them. Very early reports asserted, among other things,
- Kelly's room overlooked Dorset Street
- Kelly's room was on the second floor
- Kelly's body was found by Mrs. McCarthy
- Kelly lived with a man named Kelly, a coal porter
- Kelly had a son, variously described a 7 or 11
- Kelly's son had been placed with a neighbour
- Kelly's son saw the murderer
etc etc etc

Whether these were the invention of attention seeking persons in the area, or of the journalists themselves, will never be known. Sometimes even a source is attributed but proves to be completely spurious.
Thus, the "fact" that Kelly lived with a coal porter named Kelly is often attributed to John McCarthy as the source.

[Debra Arif]

As there's only me posted about earlier reports, I guess that was for me, Chris?
I think most of us are experienced enough to know what is and isn't reliable regarding newspaper reporting...I was perhaps publicising an idle thought, rather than being deadly serious. :)

[Chris Scott]

Hi Debs
Just a general thought, not aimed at anyone in particular:-)
Im sure I took your comment in the spirit in which it was intended and Im sure you of all people need no salutary warning about being sceptical about the truth of press reports
All the best
Chris

[Phil Carter]

Hello Debs, Chris, all,

Just an idle thought here.. could it be that the "boy" or "son" of the woman named "Mary Kelly" was infact McCarthy's son.. he who helped collect rents did he not?

Just a thought.. if we are talking of newspaper report mix-ups of purported "facts"?

The reason I idly thought of this was also in connection with another thread about the mix-ups of various names etc..

best wishes

Phil