Help On Some Details

[Sunny Delight]

Hi Jon
The link was that Mrs Paumier's mother was first married to a man named Kennedy and had a family with him. Still progressing the research...slowly.

I am also the guilty party in questioning Chris Scott's Sarah Lewis identification I'm afraid. Despite the descendants claiming a link, the family that Chris Scott researched had no known links to Spitalfields and that Sarah Lewis had in fact recently given birth to a child at the family home in Mile End. The descendants got those details wrong as Robert Linford showed.

The Sarah Lewis I stumbled across was married in an apparent 'clean-up' operation by City Missionaries in the lodging houses of Spitalfields, highlighted by poster 'San Fran'. She was a Spitalfields regular doss house resident named Sarah Pike who married George Lewis in 1888, a short time before the murder in Miller's Court. I thought she somehow fitted better but I can't prove she is the right woman.

Sarah Lewis claimed she had a row with her husband on the night of the murder that caused her to go to Miller's Court in the early hours.

Sorry to interject but yes it was your fabulous research that I had remembered. Extremely interesting that Mrs Paumier has a Kennedy connection. Of course research still has a bit to go but extremely interesting nonetheless and there may be a real possibility Paumier is using the Kennedy name. It makes sense. In regards Sarah Lewis I am unaware of the research she was identified in the past? I am new to the case as it were(being only 31 I am a relative baby). The Sarah Lewis you mention there sounds very promising. I am an historian myself although specialising in Social history. The fact that Lewis had fought with her husband and that at the height of the Ripper scare he had let her leave and walk to her friends across city. Alone. That always annoyed me. If the marriage was part of a 'clean up' operstion and was quite recent then the distinct lack of concern or care by the husband begins to sort of take a bit of shape.........

[seanr]

Was it this one from the Morning Advertiser 10 Nov. Jon?

"Mrs. M'Carthy, the landlady, might easily have seen the murderer as he passed out of the court, but she observes a strict reticence, having apparently been cautioned by the police."

I wonder if this might in fact mean 'caution' in the legal sense of the term, rather than advice. As in Mrs McCarthy had received a police caution.

[Simon Wood]

Echo, 14th November 1888—

“Mrs. McCarthy herself gives a slight clue as to the 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.'”

This stretches the meaning of the word 'slight'.

[Wickerman]

As we see, after the inquest Mrs McCarthy was only too willing to talk.

[seanr]

As we see, after the inquest Mrs McCarthy was only too willing to talk.

I mean, yeah, a bit but not really. Given she 'might easily have seen the murderer as he passed out of the court', her sketchy story that someone said to her that they saw someone who looked strange but I can't remember who, could be read as being evasive.

Even the elusive Mrs Kennedy offers us more meat to chew on.

[Wickerman]

Given the first account was dated the 10th, and indicating Mrs McCarthy knew something, but was not prepared to say what. It would seem the press published rumors.
On the 14th we get a more detailed story of what she actually knew, and it was nothing much. It may have been something if she could remember who her customer was that saw "such a funny man" up the court the morning of the murder, but before the murder was discovered.

All we were talking about is witnesses being cautioned. McCarthy had to give a statement for her to be cautioned. She obviously wasn't called to the inquest because her story was hearsay, unless she could remember the customer.
The police would retain her statement, they will be looking for this customer. Presumably McCarthy had described his/her appearance.

McCarthy's statement would be in the back of their minds when they interviewed Hutchinson, who it may be said did describe a "funny man" go up the court.

[Debra A]

Sorry to interject but yes it was your fabulous research that I had remembered. Extremely interesting that Mrs Paumier has a Kennedy connection. Of course research still has a bit to go but extremely interesting nonetheless and there may be a real possibility Paumier is using the Kennedy name. It makes sense. In regards Sarah Lewis I am unaware of the research she was identified in the past? I am new to the case as it were(being only 31 I am a relative baby). The Sarah Lewis you mention there sounds very promising. I am an historian myself although specialising in Social history. The fact that Lewis had fought with her husband and that at the height of the Ripper scare he had let her leave and walk to her friends across city. Alone. That always annoyed me. If the marriage was part of a 'clean up' operstion and was quite recent then the distinct lack of concern or care by the husband begins to sort of take a bit of shape.........

Hi SD

Thanks. I'm glad you found the research interesting. Still working on tracing Mrs Paumier's Kennedy half-siblings. I was interested to see that Mrs Paumier's son used her maiden name as his surname occasionally, as well as his own surname of Paumier. I wonder if Mrs Paumier ever borrowed her mother's previous surname?

Regarding the previous Sarah Lewis identification- Chris Scott wrote an article for Ripperologist Magazine, issue 133, on the Life of Sarah Lewis. The magazine is free so if you don't already subscribe I would highly recommend you do.
Saying that, the Ripperologist website seems to have been down for a few weeks now. Perhaps someone else here can help you out on getting a subscription.

There's discussion of the woman I stumbled across and Chris's ID on this JTR Forums thread:

https://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=29950

And this one on Casebook:

https://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=451269

[Darryl Kenyon]

Mrs Kennedy, speaking to the press on Saturday, had no story to copy, no story to learn. So you have to now invent a source out of thin air for which there is no factual basis. Then build your theory on that.
Arn't we supposed to follow the evidence, not make up our own?

What about all the residents who were cooped up in Millers Court all morning. Sarah's story would have got round easily unless she kept it completely to herself [very doubtful], and then easily rippled out from there. Thousands of people crammed into doss houses etc. Marys death and any story relating to it would spread quicker than the great fire of London.
And didn't the Star itself doubt her evidence [A-Z] .
Sorry Wick but i feel that if Kennedy said sister she meant sister. If the term was so well used/known in Victorian London then i am sure whoever Kennedy spoke to would try and clarify the point , [sister relative or sister friend].
For my money Sam is completely right in his summing up from post 194 Two people staying with two friends at the same time in near identical spots with near identical experiences. Very good odds on that.

[Sunny Delight]

Hi SD

Thanks. I'm glad you found the research interesting. Still working on tracing Mrs Paumier's Kennedy half-siblings. I was interested to see that Mrs Paumier's son used her maiden name as his surname occasionally, as well as his own surname of Paumier. I wonder if Mrs Paumier ever borrowed her mother's previous surname?

Regarding the previous Sarah Lewis identification- Chris Scott wrote an article for Ripperologist Magazine, issue 133, on the Life of Sarah Lewis. The magazine is free so if you don't already subscribe I would highly recommend you do.
Saying that, the Ripperologist website seems to have been down for a few weeks now. Perhaps someone else here can help you out on getting a subscription.

There's discussion of the woman I stumbled across and Chris's ID on this JTR Forums thread:

https://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=29950

And this one on Casebook:
https://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=451269

Very interesting links thank you. I wouldn't be convinced by the Sarah Lewis ID although there does seem to be a degree of evidence that it may be right. I look forward to reading the article. I specialise in social history in Ireland but the Victorian age in England and in particular the East end of London have recently become a source of fascination to me. I hadn't really come across the City missionaries encouraging lodging house couples to marry and become 'respectable'. This is a very interesting piece of social history I will delve much deeper into. Do you still believe Mrs Paumier may have used the name Kennedy to the press?

[Wickerman]

What about all the residents who were cooped up in Millers Court all morning. Sarah's story would have got round easily unless she kept it completely to herself [very doubtful], and then easily rippled out from there. Thousands of people crammed into doss houses etc. Marys death and any story relating to it would spread quicker than the great fire of London.

The proof of the pudding is, as they say.
Reporters would have had numerous sources for such a tale if the tenants were gossiping, yet there is nothing in the press.
It's always easy to claim unsubstantiated gossip, yet those stories are too long containing far too much detail for someone to try rehearse & memorize - its the stuff of conspiracy.
These gossipers can't even get the time of the cry of murder correct, and thats only one detail. Yet you want them to learn an entire paragraph of detail?
It just isn't going to happen.

And didn't the Star itself doubt her evidence [A-Z] .

Actually no, the Star are crediting Kennedy as being the source. Confirming that Sarah Lewis told no-one her version.

[Wickerman]

Darryl.
You'll notice the following paragraph in the Star:

A HUNDRED HIGHLY CIRCUMSTANTIAL STORIES,

which, when carefully sifted, prove to be totally devoid of truth. One woman (as reported below) who lives in the court stated that at about two o'clock she heard a cry of "Murder." This story soon became popular, until at last half a dozen women were retailing it as their own personal experience. Each story contradicted the others with respect to the time at which the cry was heard. A Star reporter who inquired into the matter extracted from one of the women the confession that the story was, as far as she was concerned, a fabrication; and he came to the conclusion that it was to be disregarded.
Star 10 Nov.

The woman credited as the source, is Kennedy. The paragraph then criticizes the copy-cat claims (which I have been talking about) of the cry of murder.
The Star know nothing of Sarah Lewis, they treat Kennedy as the original source.
This confirms that Lewis's story was not available on the street.

Several paragraphs down they introduce Kennedy's story entitled A NEIGHBOR'S DOUBTFUL STORY. which they choose to not believe. For what reason they do not say. They then add Kennedy told her story to police.

So this condemnation of Kennedy's story has nothing to do with any accusation of copying, they know nothing of Sarah Lewis.

Maybe you would care to explain why you think the Star called the Friday morning encounter 'doubtful'. There's nothing to criticize that I can see.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Darryl.
You'll notice the following paragraph in the Star:

A HUNDRED HIGHLY CIRCUMSTANTIAL STORIES,

which, when carefully sifted, prove to be totally devoid of truth. One woman (as reported below) who lives in the court stated that at about two o'clock she heard a cry of "Murder." This story soon became popular, until at last half a dozen women were retailing it as their own personal experience. Each story contradicted the others with respect to the time at which the cry was heard. A Star reporter who inquired into the matter extracted from one of the women the confession that the story was, as far as she was concerned, a fabrication; and he came to the conclusion that it was to be disregarded.
Star 10 Nov.

The woman credited as the source, is Kennedy. The paragraph then criticizes the copy-cat claims (which I have been talking about) of the cry of murder.
The Star know nothing of Sarah Lewis, they treat Kennedy as the original source.
This confirms that Lewis's story was not available on the street.

Several paragraphs down they introduce Kennedy's story entitled A NEIGHBOR'S DOUBTFUL STORY. which they choose to not believe. For what reason they do not say. They then add Kennedy told her story to police.

So this condemnation of Kennedy's story has nothing to do with any accusation of copying, they know nothing of Sarah Lewis.

Maybe you would care to explain why you think the Star called the Friday morning encounter 'doubtful'. There's nothing to criticize that I can see.

Hi Wick, The Star also reports on the same day - The row of policemen who during the greater part of yesterday blocked Dorset-street had been withdrawn last night, but the entrance to the court - which is variously known as Miller's-court or McCarthy's-court - was vigilantly kept by two constables, who allowed no one to pass except by special favor, [U]and showed especial zeal [/U]in the exclusion of reporters. The desire to be interesting has had its effect on the people who live in the Dorset-street-court and lodging-houses, and for whoever cares to listen there are - A HUNDRED HIGHLY CIRCUMSTANTIAL STORIES,.

Does that not answer itself? The press were desperate for a story they would have got their info anyway they could. They were not allowed in the court so stories second hand would have been the order of the day.
I do not know the main reason why the star doubted Kennedy's story but doubt it they did.They where there we weren't. The Star runs the story on the same day - A MAN, RESPECTABLY DRESSED,
came up and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money. The man then accompanied the woman home to her lodgings, and the little boy was removed from the room and taken to a neighbor's house. About one o'clock in the morning a person living in the court opposite to the room occupied by the murdered woman heard her singing the song, "Sweet violets," but this person is unable to say whether any one else was with her at that time. Nothing more was seen of the woman until yesterday morning, when, it is stated, the little boy was sent back into the house, and, the report goes, he was sent out subsequently on an errand by the man who was in the house with his mother. There is no direct confirmation of this statement.
We know this tale to be false and the Star hints at it - no direct confirmation.
Perhaps something similar with Kennedy and their doubts.

[Wickerman]

.... The desire to be interesting has had its effect on the people who live in the Dorset-street-court and lodging-houses, and for whoever cares to listen there are - A HUNDRED HIGHLY CIRCUMSTANTIAL STORIES,.

Does that not answer itself?

The subtitle you bring attention to introduces the fact the press were learning of various women claiming to hear that 'cry of murder'. They are "circumstantial" because such cries were regularly heard and did not automatically suggest a murder had taken place. Not only that, but that many of those claims were shown to be false.

The paragraph also suggests it was a Mrs Kennedy who originated the story.

The press were desperate for a story they would have got their info anyway they could. They were not allowed in the court so stories second hand would have been the order of the day.

Which is precisely what I mean, if there had been rumors on the street concerning those Wednesday evening & Friday morning encounters the press would have known.
We read nothing of the sort.

The Star then proceed to relate both Friday morning & Wednesday evening stories entirely credited to one source - Mrs Kennedy.
Not several versions, not various sources, only one version & one source.

The whole London press clearly knew nothing about Sarah Lewis,which in turn demonstrates Lewis told no-one about her encounters.


There is another point about that Star article. It not their own.
If you pull up the Echo of the same date...

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/echo/18881110.html

Compare that with the Star...

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881110.html

You will see the Star begins their coverage with:

"A reporter who was prosecuting inquiries in Spitalfields throughout the night says :- Between the hours of one and four nothing which may be termed unusual occurred. Women of the unfortunate class paraded the several highways with an unconcernedness which may be termed remarkable considering the recent hideous crimes...."


Whereas, the Echo begins with:
"A representative of the Press Association, who has been prosecuting inquiries in Spitalfields throughout the night says:- With the closing of the local taverns the excitement abated, and the neighbourhood assumed its normal appearance. Between the hours of one and four nothing which may be termed unusual occurred. Women of the unfortunate class paraded the several highways with an unconcernedness which may be termed remarkable, considering the recent hideous crime which had been committed......"

As you can see it is a Press Association article, an article sent by telegraph from an agency edited down by the Star to give the reader the appearance that it was their own work.

I do not know the main reason why the star doubted Kennedy's story but doubt it they did.They where there we weren't.

But they weren't there, thats the point. The Star did not interview Mrs Kennedy. Their coverage is deceptive, and they used a controversial subtitle to spark interest in order to gain readership.
The Star were well known for these tactics.

[Sam Flynn]

As you can see it is a Press Association article, an article sent by telegraph from an agency edited down by the Star to give the reader the appearance that it was their own work.

As did some, if not most, other newspapers on occasion, and it needn't imply that any of them intended to make the reader believe that it was their own work. In this instance, the report begins with the words "a reporter...says", which isn't the same as "a Star reporter...says". If it had been the latter, then I'd take a dimmer view.

[APerno]

Their coverage is deceptive, and they used a controversial subtitle to spark interest in order to gain readership.
The Star were well known for these tactics.

Is it fair to apply the phrase "these tactics" to The Star alone? 'Clipping' and creating the illusion that it's your paper 'braking the news' was common to all papers.

Yes, "leather apron" was all the fault of The Star (Harry Dam), but in the age of yellow press were it's tactics really anymore more aggressive or wrong than many newspapers? There were times when it was The Star who tempered or refrained from publishing the most grotesque details.

Me thinks, sometimes they are too quickly maligned.