Morris Lewis and the reporting of his story

[Abby Normal]

With all respect to myself it doesn't matter whether I agree or not!

It's just a question of the laws of physics. If Kelly could have been taken from Ringer's to her house, sorry I mean her room, stripped, murdered and mutilated inside 45 minutes then Lewis could have seen her just after 10am. It would simply mean that she was murdered between that time and the discovery by Bowyer. It doesn't matter if it's a tight squeeze. If it was possible then it could have happened.

If it was impossible and Macnaghten was right about 90 minutes then Lewis couldn't have seen Kelly alive at that time.

Hi David
For comparison, after either chapman or eddowes one of the drs said he wouldn't have been able to do the same thing under x amount of time. I can't remember the exact amount , but it was rather significant like 45 or 60 minutes, something like that.

Maybe you or someone can find the quote, but even simple research, like this which is probably Even on casebook I'm woefully deficient at. Lol.

[David Orsam]

The question you are asked:

"Could she not have been murdered after the sightings?"

is one, to which it may not therefore be possible to give a conclusive answer.

Yes, on a literal interpretation of the "evidence" as to the sightings that is a fair comment but if we start with the premise that Lewis was a witness of truth then I would say that the likelihood is that when he spoke to the LWN reporter one or both of them was confused about the timing and that his sighting actually occurred at 9am. In the P.A. report, a time of 9am was given for his pitch & toss game and, while that game could have lasted an hour, at which point a policeman was spotted, I would suggest it was the time it ended. Perhaps he confused himself the next day into thinking it was 10am but 9am, especially when matched with Mrs M's evidence, would make much more sense.

I repeat that this is premised on Lewis being truthful.

[David Orsam]

There is always some "evidence". The problem is that "evidence" must be discussed in relation to validity and reliability. If you are not able to do this, there is just one solution: Pretending the evidence is no evidence.

But the past and its sources are not presenting themselves as 0/1, i.e. evidence/no evidence. You will have to discuss the problems of the evidence. That is the key to the past.

Once again Pierre, you intervene in a discussion I am having with another forum member which you have failed to understand. It is untrue and nonsense to say that there is "always some evidence". Don't be silly. I suppose I could ask you for your source for this but it's not even worth bothering because it's such a self-evidently false statement.

So then you claim to know something. What is that "something" on which you base the hypothesis that it could have been done in "15 minutes"?

Being kind, it may be that you are not a native English speaker and the subtleties of the English language escape you but my statement "For all I know it could all have been done in 15 minutes" is in no way a hypothesis that the murder could have been committed in 15 minutes. I don't, however, have time to waste giving you English lessons so you will have to figure it out by yourself.

And if we donīt know of one, why not write to someone and ask? Send them the MJK pics and ask them how long time they would estimate for such extensive mutilations. Yes, why no send the question to 50 pathologists, them we will have a range of time ranges.

It would be a complete waste of time sending someone the poor quality MJK pics without, at the very least, a copy of Dr Bond's report and even then an expert might not feel able to express an opinion as to how long the process would have taken. In any event, as any opinion given would not be on oath and recorded in a primary source I feel sure it would fail to satisfy you so it doesn't seem worth it but if you want to go ahead and do it, good luck.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;375084]With all respect to Packers it doesn't really matter what he thinks is a plausible timetable.

Unless I've missed something, there isn't any evidence as to how long the murder and mutilations would have taken, is there?

There is always some "evidence". The problem is that "evidence" must be discussed in relation to validity and reliability. If you are not able to do this, there is just one solution: Pretending the evidence is no evidence.

But the past and its sources are not presenting themselves as 0/1, i.e. evidence/no evidence. You will have to discuss the problems of the evidence. That is the key to the past.

For all I know it could all have been done in 15 minutes

So then you claim to know something. What is that "something" on which you base the hypothesis that it could have been done in "15 minutes"?

But I just don't know and don't seem to have any actual evidence to guide me.

So try and use the evidence and get som knowledge. If we donīt try, we will get nowhere with this case.

Perhaps there is a sensible modern estimate by a pathologist.

Do you know of one Steve?

And if we donīt know of one, why not write to someone and ask? Send them the MJK pics and ask them how long time they would estimate for such extensive mutilations. Yes, why no send the question to 50 pathologists, them we will have a range of time ranges.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

With all respect to myself it doesn't matter whether I agree or not!

It's just a question of the laws of physics. If Kelly could have been taken from Ringer's to her house, sorry I mean her room, stripped, murdered and mutilated inside 45 minutes then Lewis could have seen her just after 10am. It would simply mean that she was murdered between that time and the discovery by Bowyer. It doesn't matter if it's a tight squeeze. If it was possible then it could have happened.

If it was impossible and Macnaghten was right about 90 minutes then Lewis couldn't have seen Kelly alive at that time.

Dear David,

Your Answer above sums up the position I was trying to make, obviously far better than my attempt, which was i accept not as clear as it should have been.

The question you are asked:

"Could she not have been murdered after the sightings?"

is one, to which it may not therefore be possible to give a conclusive answer.

all the best

Steve

[packers stem]

Hi David

If it was impossible and Macnaghten was right about 90 minutes then Lewis couldn't have seen Kelly alive at that time.

Unless the body was misidentified

[David Orsam]

You may not agree David, and I have no problem with that.

With all respect to myself it doesn't matter whether I agree or not!

It's just a question of the laws of physics. If Kelly could have been taken from Ringer's to her house, sorry I mean her room, stripped, murdered and mutilated inside 45 minutes then Lewis could have seen her just after 10am. It would simply mean that she was murdered between that time and the discovery by Bowyer. It doesn't matter if it's a tight squeeze. If it was possible then it could have happened.

If it was impossible and Macnaghten was right about 90 minutes then Lewis couldn't have seen Kelly alive at that time.

[packers stem]

Hello Packers,

There be fair I actually regard Barnett as a credible suspect myself.

Regarding Schwartz, I believe there were at least five reports that referred to his evidence:

HO 144/221A49301C, fols 148-59. Report to the Home Office by Chief Inspector Swanson, 19th October 1888.

HO 144/221/A49391C. A Home Office minute in which an explanation of the word Lipski was asked for.

MEPO 3/140231A49301C, fols.204-6. Report by Inspector Abberline, dated 1 November 1888

MEPO 3/140/22/ A 49301C, fols 207. Draft letter from Robert Anderson to Sir Charles Warren, dated 5 November 1888

HO 144/221/A49401C, fol. 199. Repeat of the above by Charles Warren in a letter to the Home Office, dated 6 November 1888.

I therefore think it a reasonable assumption that Lewis was not taken seriously as a witness, i.e. because his evidence had been undermined in some significant way. However, I agree that it is unfortunate that we have no official confirmation of this. Nonetheless, that still means that all we have to go on is a number of inconsistent press reports.

And, as I noted in my reply to David, if Lewis and Maxwell were correct, there must surely have been a significant number of people, such as Britannia pub-goers, who must have deduced that the wrong person was die as the victim, and who may have been aware of Kelly's dramatic escape from Whitechapel. The fact that none of these supposed witnesses came forward, or that not so much as a single rumour was circulated is, in my opinion, virtually inconceivable. After all, given the publicity the case attracted, whoever did come forward would probably have been able to dine out on his story for years!

Hi John
I will have to concede to you that Schwartz was mentioned in a few files other than the Swanson report but the inexplicable decision to not call him to the inquest can never be satisfactorily explained
In defense also I would say there are very few files remaining from the Kelly murder to make the judgement that Lewis was not interviewed .
In fact it would seem bizarre for him not to have been interviewed considering his press statements,same goes for mrs kennedy.It is still more likely than not that an interview report has disappeared rather than never taken in the first place .
As for the pub goers I've given my opinion on that a number of times.If a large number of them came forward from the previous night then you may have a point but they didn't.Non appearing witnesses is not a reason to dismiss 3 witnesses .

As for Barnett ....no ,not for me although he would be aware of events by the morning of the 9th I'm sure and may have deliberately misidentified

[Elamarna]

With all respect to Packers it doesn't really matter what he thinks is a plausible timetable. Unless I've missed something, there isn't any evidence as to how long the murder and mutilations would have taken, is there?

For all I know it could all have been done in 15 minutes. But I just don't know and don't seem to have any actual evidence to guide me.

Perhaps there is a sensible modern estimate by a pathologist. Do you know of one Steve?

David
No I don't, the only time scale I have ever seen was from MACNAGHTEN who suggested about 90mins I think.
He was not a doctor, so don't think we can take that, as any sort of judgement. I did say we don't know how long it would have taken.

I was responding to your question, could she not have been killed after a sighting, I suggest certainly possible at 9.30, probably still just about so at close to 10am. if any later I suggest it becomes harder to fit it in.
However it is something we cannot be conclusive about, it will be guess work.

You may not agree David, and I have no problem with that.

all the best

steve

[David Orsam]

I asked Packers if he considered such a timetable plausible, he did not.

With all respect to Packers it doesn't really matter what he thinks is a plausible timetable. Unless I've missed something, there isn't any evidence as to how long the murder and mutilations would have taken, is there?

For all I know it could all have been done in 15 minutes. But I just don't know and don't seem to have any actual evidence to guide me.

Perhaps there is a sensible modern estimate by a pathologist. Do you know of one Steve?

[Elamarna]

Hold on. Lewis and Maxwell said they saw her at 9-10am, not 11am. Could she not have been murdered after the sightings?

David

As I said to Packers Stem yesterday, if there is a sighting before say at around 9.30, it is doable in my opinion.,

If we go to 10am or slightly later it makes the window very tight, she needs to go back to #13, either with her killer, or he joins her there, he butchers her and gets out unseen before Bowyer arrives at 10.45.

I asked Packers if he considered such a timetable plausible, he did not.
While I accept it is not impossible, not knowing how long that level of butchery took, it is certainly very difficult to fit in.

Steve

[David Orsam]

And, as I noted in my reply to David, if Lewis and Maxwell were correct, there must surely have been a significant number of people, such as Britannia pub-goers, who must have deduced that the wrong person was die as the victim, and who may have been aware of Kelly's dramatic escape from Whitechapel.

Hold on. Lewis and Maxwell said they saw her at 9-10am, not 11am. Could she not have been murdered after the sightings?

[John G]

Hi John



Really ? Does it matter to this thread?



Why was he absent from the inquest?? As I've mentioned before he would be unreliable in many eyes had it not been for the home office files .



If that single Schwartz report had vanished???
Is it also inconceivable that there were no Mary Kelly mortuary photos or was it OK for them to disappear but not a report on Lewis?



But John ,it's not his fault that he wasn't called to the inquest and it's not necessarily a fair assumption that the interview wouldn't have gone well .Like with Schwartz ,we can not know the reasons behind the thinking of not calling him .

Hello Packers,

There be fair I actually regard Barnett as a credible suspect myself.

Regarding Schwartz, I believe there were at least five reports that referred to his evidence:

HO 144/221A49301C, fols 148-59. Report to the Home Office by Chief Inspector Swanson, 19th October 1888.

HO 144/221/A49391C. A Home Office minute in which an explanation of the word Lipski was asked for.

MEPO 3/140231A49301C, fols.204-6. Report by Inspector Abberline, dated 1 November 1888

MEPO 3/140/22/ A 49301C, fols 207. Draft letter from Robert Anderson to Sir Charles Warren, dated 5 November 1888

HO 144/221/A49401C, fol. 199. Repeat of the above by Charles Warren in a letter to the Home Office, dated 6 November 1888.

I therefore think it a reasonable assumption that Lewis was not taken seriously as a witness, i.e. because his evidence had been undermined in some significant way. However, I agree that it is unfortunate that we have no official confirmation of this. Nonetheless, that still means that all we have to go on is a number of inconsistent press reports.

And, as I noted in my reply to David, if Lewis and Maxwell were correct, there must surely have been a significant number of people, such as Britannia pub-goers, who must have deduced that the wrong person was die as the victim, and who may have been aware of Kelly's dramatic escape from Whitechapel. The fact that none of these supposed witnesses came forward, or that not so much as a single rumour was circulated is, in my opinion, virtually inconceivable. After all, given the publicity the case attracted, whoever did come forward would probably have been able to dine out on his story for years!

[David Orsam]

No, thatīs why I asked you if you knew anything about it.

Strange then that in the absence of any factual information supplied by me you decided to speculate about what the witnesses would have heard had they been questioned together, for which there is no evidence.

[Pierre]

Do you have a source showing that the witnesses were questioned together?

And do you have a source showing that the witnesses (and Mrs Maxwell in particular) were questioned at all by the police before 3pm on 9 November? Or even before 4:30pm?

Hi David,

No, thatīs why I asked you if you knew anything about it.

Regards, Pierre