Mary’s TOD and Mrs Kennedy’s respectably dressed man.

[Fleetwood Mac]

When you wrote "thorough" I expected you to be gone a while, there's more than two statements to read.
Anyhow, lets be brief.

Here we find Kennedy's address, and quite a long account.
Immediately opposite the house in which Mary Jane Kelly was murdered is a tenement occupied by an Irishman, named Gallagher, and his family. On Thursday night Gallagher and his wife retired to rest at a fairly early hour. Their married daughter, a woman named Mrs. Kennedy, came home, however, at a late hour. Passing the Britannia, commonly known as Ringer's, at the top of Dorset street, at three o'clock on the Friday morning, she saw the deceased talking to a respectably dressed man, whom she identified as having accosted her a night or two before.

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

You already have Lewis's address, from the inquest.
Sarah Lewis deposed: I live at 24, Great Pearl-street, and am a laundress. I know Mrs. Keyler, in Miller's-court, and went to her house at 2, Miller's-court, at 2.30a.m. on Friday.

https://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_kelly.html

There must be about 10 or 12 press accounts concerning Kennedy, ranging from 10 Nov. through to 17th, some being duplicate, but edited.
Sarah Lewis did not talk to the press, so we only have her police statement taken on the 9th, and her inquest testimony from the 12th, published on 13th.

Their stories from the Wednesday evening encounter are essentially the same, naturally, they were together.
However, what they saw Friday morning differs.

- Lewis came by the Britannia, and arrived at her friends house before 2:30.
- Kennedy came by the Britannia, on her way home, about 3:00 am.

- Lewis saw one woman with one man outside the Britannia.
- Kennedy saw two women with the same man outside the Britannia, one of the women being Kelly.

- Lewis passed down Dorset st. and saw a couple walking on ahead, and a man loitering opposite Millers Court.
- Kennedy makes no mention of seeing anyone in Dorset St.

There's nothing there that suggests Lewis & Kennedy were the same person, in fact what we have demonstrates the opposite.




"Laundress" was often a euphemism for street-walker. We can see this 'title' used for single women in the Census records. 'Seamstress", was another favorite euphemism for ladies of the night.

Jon,

I don't particularly want to get lost in a debate as to whether or not Sarah Lewis and Mrs Kennedy were one and the same. I'm more interested in the respectably dressed man. I did have a look at your link and I couldn't see an address for Mrs Kennedy. Out of curiosity, however, as you've clearly done a lot of reading on this: which house/room did Mrs Kennedy go into?

Anyway, back to the respectably dressed man. What is your take on the: "are you comin'?" part of Mrs Kennedy's statement? That would suggest to me that the couple are probably not in a relationship. The reason being he wouldn't have needed to ask that question, walking on together would have been pre-determined prior to being near The Britannia.

[Fleetwood Mac]

This is my suspicion. Keep in mind, if you believe that the C4 or C5 were all killed by the same person, then whoever killed Kelly had killed in populated areas before and made very little in the way of noise. The people living above the Nichols murder site at best heard faint moaning. The people living above Mitre Square heard nothing. Seemingly only one person on Hanbury Street heard any noise.

I conclude from this that the Ripper was sane enough to know that society considered what he was doing to be wrong and that he needed to minimize the amount of noise he was making and the amount of evidence he left behind.

From the witness statements I have read, I'd conclude that it's very much open to debate as to how much noise he made.

[Sunny Delight]

A bit off topic but one for those who have been searching for Mary Kelly in the records in Ireland. In 1922 during the Civil war the Public record Office was destroyed in a huge fire during fighting. The damage destroyed hundreds of years worth of records. Now a massive undertaking attempting to recover a lot of these records has neared its fruition. Hundreds of thousands of records have been pieced together. Maybe a link to Mary Kelly could be found in these records.

https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/...d%20Collection.

[Wickerman]

Jon,

The point about Mary Ann Cox's education was/is in reply to your point that she must be mistaken (in terms of being able to hear a scream/cry/voice from her position). She might not have been well-educated, but that doesn't mean she's not capable of knowing exactly what she should have heard from her position. I think Cox gives a reasonable statement lacking in theatrics, and she knows that court well, she would have had the experience of all sorts of noises at various times of the day/night in that court. I think Cox is very well placed to tell us exactly what she should have heard. In the event you choose to ignore Cox's statement or claim she must have been mistaken, then I'd suggest any theory is immediately rendered to be on shaky foundations.

Cox didn't say she believed the footsteps were that of a policeman and nor did she offer a guess. Cox was pressed/asked a direct question, to which she could only have said yes or no. The answer Cox gave was her only reasonable option because of course those footsteps could have been from anyone with a reason to be in that court.

There is nothing in that statement which suggests Cox is being 'somewhat argumentative'.

FM, let me ask you this.

There are two issues here, I take the cry of 'murder' as more important than footsteps in the night. Yet you appear to avoid addressing the fact Cox claimed not to hear a cry, in fact her wording suggests she denies there ever was a cry, by responding; "if there had been a cry, I should have heard it, there was not the least noise".
Denying the cry ever happened is being argumentative.

You seem more concerned over those footsteps, which in all honesty, could belong to anybody, as she conceded.
I'm not ignoring her words, I'm saying she has nothing to offer. The only emphatic statement she does make (the cry?) turns out to be wrong anyway!
The court is even left in some doubt as to the time she came back down the passage, while Prater was there, who didn't see her come bye.
What value does Cox contribute?

[Wickerman]

Jon,

I don't particularly want to get lost in a debate as to whether or not Sarah Lewis and Mrs Kennedy were one and the same. I'm more interested in the respectably dressed man. I did have a look at your link and I couldn't see an address for Mrs Kennedy. Out of curiosity, however, as you've clearly done a lot of reading on this: which house/room did Mrs Kennedy go into?

The number is not given, it is only described as "opposite" the deceased, her "home" is "living with her parents" in Millers Court, whereas Lewis has an address in Great Pearl St.

Anyway, back to the respectably dressed man. What is your take on the: "are you comin'?" part of Mrs Kennedy's statement? That would suggest to me that the couple are probably not in a relationship. The reason being he wouldn't have needed to ask that question, walking on together would have been pre-determined prior to being near The Britannia.

I'm not sure there is enough to make a case for any argument, we don't know what tone he used. Did he sound impatient, or exited? The "woman" (as opposed to the "female") apparently did not want to go with the man, she turned away in the opposite direction. Was she mad with him for speaking to the other "female", or had she been with the "female", and she wanted no part of his company?

We are left to assume the "female" identified as "Kelly" in one report, or "poorly clad and without any headgear" in others, was left with the man, standing on the corner. Kennedy continued on home to her parents in Millers Court.

[Sunny Delight]

Obviously, the witness statements seem somewhat contradictory. By way of example, Sarah Lewis’s statement and George Hutchinson’s statement in that he didn’t mention seeing Sarah Lewis as he looked up the court and Lewis walked into the court.

Are we able to piece together a decent bet for TOD based on parts of witness statements that are not so contentious?

In terms of night-time activity:

Most will know that during Victorian times pattern of sleep was not what it is today. The view that one continuous sleep of say 7 to 8 hours is the optimum sleeping pattern is a modern invention, while in Victorian times the optimum sleeping pattern was deemed to be a few hours, followed by getting up for a few hours to do whatever including house chores, and then back to bed for a few hours.

The pubs were open early in the morning and Elizabeth Prater woke at 5am and was back in the pub between 5.30am and 5.45am. When Prater left Miller’s Court, men were harnessing horses in Dorset Street. Prater mentions that McCarthy’s shop was open at 1.30am, from which it can be inferred that there was sufficient activity at that time of night to generate custom.

Sarah Lewis retires at approx. 2.30am; Mary Ann Cox retires at approx. 3am; Mrs Kennedy at approx. 3am. No witnesses mention retiring to their lodgings after this time. Whether or not you believe Sarah Lewis and Mrs Kennedy to be one and the same, it doesn’t alter the proposition that this appears to be the approximate time when the last people were coming in off the streets and activity was at its lowest.

I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest the period of least activity was between 3am and 5am.

What would this mean for the murderer’s optimum time-frame?

Well, it would depend on his thought process. My instinct is that in terms of undertaking the mutilations and leaving Miller’s Court, the safest bet would be the time of least activity, and upon reasoning I would maintain that conclusion. That said, my reasoning couldn’t possibly account for his state of mind and when opportunity arose.

Mary Ann Cox Testimony:

Cox returns at approx. 3am and is awake all night. Cox hears men or a man going to work in the market, and she hears a man walking in the court at 5.45am. Clearly Cox can hear people walking in the court from her position.

My Conclusion:

The murderer would most likely have left that room by the time activity begins to bubble again at say 5am. Dr Phillips suggested the extensive mutilations would have taken two hours to perform. This timeframe is supported by Cox not hearing a couple walk up the court after 3am. The obvious flaw in this conclusion is Cox not mentioning someone going down the court between 3am and 5am. Cox did mention hearing men or a man going to work in the market, perhaps she assumed the murderer was a market worker. Alternatively, perhaps Blotchy is the murderer and leaves as he arrived: walking noiselessly.

I’d suggest this conclusion would increase the likelihood of any one of: Blotchy, the ‘well dressed man’, George Hutchinson and the man with the wideawake hat; being the murderer.

Any thoughts on the above are welcome and I have a question: why is Mrs Kennedy’s respectable man with the dark moustache rarely discussed? Particularly when considering PC Smith’s sighting.

Yeah I have come to that conclusion as well- Lewis and Kennedy are the same person. I had a general discussion with Wickerman on a previous thread in regards this and although he raised some fine points the newspaper reports are much too jumbled to attempt to decipher exactly what Mrs. Kennedy saw. In some reports she says she saw two men and a woman. In other she says a man and a woman. In some she says she saw Kelly, in others a hatless woman. What confuses me is that both see the man who accosted them a few days previously and both are headed to a room opposite Mary Kelly's within half an hour of each other. Kennedy arrives later yet Lewis is called to the Inquest and Kennedy isn't?

I think when it comes to this man we also have to take into account the fact he seemed to prefer approaching women who were in pairs. Lewis and her companion. The hatless woman and her companion if Kennedy is genuine and not Lewis. This seems to go against the killers modus operandi of approaching unaccompanied females unless of course the Ripper was one of the soldiers seen with Martha Tabram and the reason he stopped killing was because he was posted abroad to some conflict.

[Wickerman]

If you don't mind me pointing out a couple of things...

Mrs. Kennedy...... In some reports she says she saw two men and a woman. In other she says a man and a woman.

Actually no, in all reports Kennedy speaks of two women & one man, it is Lewis who speaks of one woman with one man.

What confuses me is that both see the man who accosted them a few days previously and both are headed to a room opposite Mary Kelly's within half an hour of each other. Kennedy arrives later yet Lewis is called to the Inquest and Kennedy isn't?

Yes, because Lewis saw the man loitering opposite the murder site, that was the main concern of the court, this was why Lewis was called.

Why I say this is because in her police statement, her sighting of the loiterer standing opposite is the first thing she talks about.
Others also directly involved were Bowyer, McCarthy & Cox. Bowyers statement begins with his discovery of the body, McCarthy's when he was called by Bowyer, and Cox's begins with her seeing Kelly with Blotchy. All their statements begin with the most important reason they were called.
Lewis only mentions the couple outside the Britannia in the last line of her statement, almost as an ...oh, by the way...

I think when it comes to this man we also have to take into account the fact he seemed to prefer approaching women who were in pairs.

Which seems to be an odd MO, if murder is on his mind. How can he expect to kill two women without causing a scene?
Maybe his plans were to separate them?

In the papers we read that some street-walkers had decided to walking around in pairs.
So perhaps street-walkers out alone were not as plentiful after a certain time of night?
If pairs were all he had to choose from, he could go with them and attempt to separate them, with the aim of having only one victim?

Remember what he purportedly said to Kennedy, "I only want one of you". Kennedy also told us (the Wednesday escapade) "he stepped through the gate but only invited one of us to follow him". So separation does seem to have been his intent.

Something else appears to have been overlooked.
If you recall, Kennedy told the reporter "he refused to stand us both a drink", which indicates they must have asked him to buy them drinks. This is what prostitutes do to engage a client.
Were Kennedy & Lewis part-time prostitutes?