Caroline Margaret Taylor was born around 1834 in Stanway, Essex (Colchester). Her parents were Thomas and Mary.
Caroline was married in 1855 in Colchester to John Nash and they had several children together including Henry, William, George, Ellen, Elizabeth, Anna, Arthur and Alfred.
In 1861 Caroline and John lived at Number 5, Ringers Buildings, Commercial Street, Spitalfields and John was employed as a carman for a potato merchant - children there were Henry, George, Helen and Elizabeth.
In 1871 they lived at 4 Commercial Street and John was employed as a shopman. Children living there were William, Ellen, Anna, Arthur and Alfred.
However, on 18th February 1873, Caroline married a William Hewitt who was a horseman and lived at 25 Dorset Street. She was a widow and he a widower. Caroline was shown as residing at 12 Fashion Street.
I've been unable, so far, to tie them down in the 1881 census but in 1891 they were at 25 Dorset Street.
In the Complete Jack The Ripper A to Z (Begg / Fido / Skinner) there is an entry for a Mrs Hewitt. She gave information to The Star and apparently their window "affords a view of the court" and they saw nothing untoward.
However, supposedly she also stated that a man, a drover, called on her some time ago. He asked her if a summons came in the name of Lawrence to accept it. She believed he lived with the dead woman and he was off and on in London, sometimes being absent for five or six weeks. This was reported in The Star on 9th November 1888. It seems, from this, some reports named the murdered woman as Mary Jane Lawrence.
Is anyone able to post the article from The Star or any similar reporting from the time - or point me in the direction of where it can be found please? Have other members of the forum delved into any of this? Apologies if this has all been said before. Thanks for your patience.
Wonder if there are other reports of the same nature in other papers. If there was any mileage in the name Mary Lawrence this Mr Lawrence could have been a brother say, who called on her from time to time. For a summons in respect of him to go to 25 seems odd but he could have given a wrong address if he didn't reside at 26 or was not there regularly. Presumable the Lawrence angle has never been taken seriously though.