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

[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

[Howard 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?