Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The mysterious Mrs Kennedy...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The mysterious Mrs Kennedy...

    The star 10th November
    ...'she states that about three o'clock on Friday morning she entered Dorset Street on the way to her parents house,which is situated immediately opposite that in which the murder was committed. She noticed three persons at the corner of the street near the Britannia public house. There was a man,a young man,respectably dressed, and with a dark moustache talking to a woman whom she did not know, and also a female poorly clad, and without any headgear. The man and woman appeared to be the worse for liquor, and she heard the man ask, "Are you coming" whereupon the woman who appeared to be obstinate, turned in an opposite direction to which the man apparently wished her to go'....

    She then goes on to mention the cry of oh murder and the report of the man in Bethnal Green Road the previous day.
    Because of this many people have presumed her and Sarah Lewis were one and the same.
    The newspaper mentioned that she'd made a statement.
    If she was indeed Sarah Lewis then how was miss Lewis allowed anywhere near the inquest as she must have been the most unreliable witness of all time...
    Every time I read the above quote from the star I just hear the truth, it does not come across as a lie in any way, it's far too natural for me, especially the part about wanting to go off in a different direction and the lack of headgear.
    If Kennedy was Lewis how on earth did after 3 become 2.30, I know this by the church clock??
    If Kennedy was Lewis then how did the story change from 2 women and a man to one woman and a man, before the crossing out,to just a man....
    For me, if Kennedy and Lewis were one and the same then the Kennedy newspaper report appears far more likely to be the truth. If they were not the same person then she was almost certainly the last witness before the murder
    You can lead a horse to water.....

  • #2
    The late and much lamented Chris Scott wrote an interesting article on Sarah Lewis in Ripperologist Magazine 133, packers, which may interest you (if you haven't read it already of course!) Chris noted that Sarah was five months pregnant when she testified at the Inquest.

    Debra Arif provided the link. Thank you Debra!

    http://www.ripperologist.biz/pdf/ripperologist133.pdf

    Lewis seems to have been linked with the Keylers/ Gallagher family at Millers Court in some way. The Gallaghers (according to the Evening News of 10/11/88) were an Irish family who lived opposite Mary Kelly's room and had a married daughter, Mrs Kennedy, who had visited them on the night of the murder.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Rosella View Post
      The late and much lamented Chris Scott wrote an interesting article on Sarah Lewis in Ripperologist Magazine 133, packers, which may interest you (if you haven't read it already of course!) Chris noted that Sarah was five months pregnant when she testified at the Inquest.

      Debra Arif provided the link. Thank you Debra!

      http://www.ripperologist.biz/pdf/ripperologist133.pdf

      Lewis seems to have been linked with the Keylers/ Gallagher family at Millers Court in some way. The Gallaghers (according to the Evening News of 10/11/88) were an Irish family who lived opposite Mary Kelly's room and had a married daughter, Mrs Kennedy, who had visited them on the night of the murder.
      Thanks Rosella.
      Have read it before but it doesn't help with Kennedy.
      The evening news piece was interesting with the Gallaghers but then again the same piece mentioned a suspect description by McCarthy where we know he didn't see anyone.
      The problem is the time and sighting mentioned by Kennedy from entering Dorset Street to arriving at Millers Court is completely different to Lewis... There are no similarities at all.
      If they were the same person then why should the story change so dramatically? It couldn't really.
      Either they are different people and maybe we've never seen a Kennedy statement or Sarah Lewis story found itself altered completely at the time of giving the statement...
      The assertion that 'Hutchinson was not talking to anyone' at the inquest is odd in itself.... No real reason to even mention it. One of those overstating moments possibly
      You can lead a horse to water.....

      Comment


      • #4
        From what I understand, a witness receives a summons to appear in court. Only the witness knows they have been summoned. There is no public listing of witnesses, for obvious reason's.

        So this report suggests Mrs Kennedy received a summons to appear, the reporter cannot learn this from anyone else.


        Daily Telegraph, 12 Nov. 1888.
        Last edited by Wickerman; 07-22-2018, 04:59 PM.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • #5
          Was Mrs. Kennedy five months pregnant at the time?
          Last edited by Simon Wood; 07-22-2018, 06:13 PM. Reason: spolling mistook
          Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

          Comment


          • #6
            Simon, she had a beer belly from Ringers, which sort of counts.

            Anyway, from what I read in your thesis, had she gone into expected labor, there was plenty of help in Millers Court that particular morning.

            You see, I do read.

            Comment


            • #7
              " I know Mrs. Keyler, in Miller's-court, and went to her house at 2, Miller's-court, at 2.30a.m. on Friday. It is the first house. I noticed the time by Spitalfields' Church clock. When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake. There was no one talking to him. He was a stout-looking man, and not very tall. The hat was black. I did not take any notice of his clothes. The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one."

              Sarah Lewis associated herself with the Keylers, and she is called to testify under that same name. There is no Ms Kennedy that testifies. The discrepancies in their accounts are easily understandable considering the scramble for the latest by the press.
              Michael Richards

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Rosella View Post
                The late and much lamented Chris Scott wrote an interesting article on Sarah Lewis in Ripperologist Magazine 133, packers, which may interest you (if you haven't read it already of course!) Chris noted that Sarah was five months pregnant when she testified at the Inquest.
                I just feel I should mention here that Chris's article was a proposed ID of the witness who appeared at MJK's inquest, Sarah Lewis, based on information given to him by the descendants of a woman named Sarah Lewis.

                Chris could not link this particular woman to Great Pearl St., Spitalfields or Whitechapel and the family idea that their ancestor was pregnant at the time seems to be a detail added to the family story, apparently to tie in with a child supposedly born in Whitechapel in 1888 in the 1891 census.

                Chris mistakenly picked up the details of a child born to another Lewis family in 88 and suggested Sarah would have been five months pregnant at the time of the inquest based on that birth entry belonging to a different family .

                The child on the 1891 census was in fact born on 8th August 1888, exactly 130 years ago today, in Mile End. So, rather than being pregnant, this Sarah Lewis actually had a 3 month old baby to care for. The descendants 'well known family story' that their ancestor was 5 months pregnant when she attended the inquest is incorrect.
                ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

                I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Thanks for the above. Does anyone know if Chris Scott's essay on Mrs. Kennedy ever appeared? He refers to it at the end of the article, but I don't recall seeing it. Then again, my memory isn't so hot.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                    Thanks for the above. Does anyone know if Chris Scott's essay on Mrs. Kennedy ever appeared? He refers to it at the end of the article, but I don't recall seeing it. Then again, my memory isn't so hot.
                    Hi RJ
                    Chris didn't get anything published about Mrs Kennedy. We exchanged emails on the subject at the time his Lewis article was published in Ripperologist but Chris didn't disclose to me what he was intending to write about Kennedy. He seemed to be in the early research stages. I think he may have just felt that because he had written an article about Lewis he needed at some point to address the issue of whether or not Lewis and Kennedy were the same woman but hadn't any firm ideas at that time.
                    ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

                    I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Thanks for that Debra. It’s a pity; I would have like to have read Chris’s thoughts on the topic. McCarthy, Kennedy, Kelly, Gallagher…lots of Irish names connected to “McCarthy’s Rents.” Of course, there were plenty of Irish in the East End, but maybe they were drawn to this obscure dive by word-of-mouth among the Irish community or word-of-mouth about McCarthy himself.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                        Thanks for that Debra. It’s a pity; I would have like to have read Chris’s thoughts on the topic. McCarthy, Kennedy, Kelly, Gallagher…lots of Irish names connected to “McCarthy’s Rents.” Of course, there were plenty of Irish in the East End, but maybe they were drawn to this obscure dive by word-of-mouth among the Irish community or word-of-mouth about McCarthy himself.
                        I seem to recall Dorset St being described as predominantly Irish at the time, with the influx of more recent continental immigrants pushing the earlier arrivals into a huddle there. Certainly (by 1901 at least) there was more than one McCarthy family, as he himself stated when describing the make-up of the street in a speech;

                        "There are four shops - one fish-shop and three general shops and it is a REMARKABLE COINCIDENCE that the three shops are all of THAT SAME HISTORICAL NAME, "McCarthy." ("Good luck to the lot of em!") Though THIS IS THE CASE, they belong to three separate and distinct families."

                        Incidentally, does anyone know if the fish shop was there in 1888?

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X