Morris Lewis and the reporting of his story

[GUT]

In her case there must have been serious suspicion that she'd mixed Kelly up with someone else. Moreover, enquiries at the Britannia, and other local pubs, found that there was no evidence that Kelly had been served with drink on the morning of her murder, as Maxwell claimed (this also undermines Lewis as well).

Nonetheless, I accept this is something that the grand conspiracy theorists will never accept (not that I'm suggesting your one of those, David!).

Moreover, if Lewis and Maxwell are correct, there must surely be a large number of witnesses who were aware that Kelly was still alive well after the time she was presumed to have been murdered, and witnesses who were either involved, or aware, of her dramatic "escape" from Whitechapel.

And the temptation for anyone of those witnesses to come forward over the following days, months and years must have been enormous. I mean, anyone who did come forward would probably have become such a local celebrity that they might well have never had to buy a drink again!

That's the biggest problem, surely if she'd been in th pub, any dan pub for that matter, surely at least one other person would have come forward, like a barman.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

The police took the statements of the witnesses on Dorset Street 9 November. Mrs Maxwell was one of them. Do you know if they took them separately, or were any of the witnesses questioned together?

Hi Pierre,

I'm more concerned with why you've ignored all my posts addressed to you and have responded to one of my posts to John.

[John G]

Like Caroline Maxwell, whose evidence must have been considered "remotely plausible", was one of the most important witnesses in the entire inquiry?

In her case there must have been serious suspicion that she'd mixed Kelly up with someone else. Moreover, enquiries at the Britannia, and other local pubs, found that there was no evidence that Kelly had been served with drink on the morning of her murder, as Maxwell claimed (this also undermines Lewis as well).

Nonetheless, I accept this is something that the grand conspiracy theorists will never accept (not that I'm suggesting your one of those, David!).

Moreover, if Lewis and Maxwell are correct, there must surely be a large number of witnesses who were aware that Kelly was still alive well after the time she was presumed to have been murdered, and witnesses who were either involved, or aware, of her dramatic "escape" from Whitechapel.

And the temptation for anyone of those witnesses to come forward over the following days, months and years must have been enormous. I mean, anyone who did come forward would probably have become such a local celebrity that they might well have never had to buy a drink again!

[John G]

Hi John



Bingo...
My thoughts entirely
I do hope people can see the parallels

Hello Packers,

Well, I think I might just have discovered who your prime suspect is! However, as I noted, Schwartz was initially taken extremely seriously by a number of senior figures. In stark contrast, there is no evidence that Lewis was taken remotely seriously by anyone-and I think it inconceivable that there wouldn't have been surviving official reports, referring to Lewis, if that were not the case.

And, at the very least, a few press statements are clearly insufficient to determine the credibility of witness who's evidence was not tested at an inquest, and I think it's a fair assumption that any police interview didn't go to well for him, otherwise there would surely be surviving reports and he may well have ended up as the prime witness, instead of rapidly disappearing into obscurity!

[David Orsam]

So the conclusion is that Morris Lewis might not even have known Mary Jane Kelly. And if he didnīt, we donīt know who he is speaking about.

Pierre, how do you manage to extract from Edward's post, in which he was talking about people who were not familiar with number 13 Millers Court, a conclusion that Morris Lewis might not have known Mary Jane Kelly?

[David Orsam]

However, if Lewis' evidence was considered remotely plausible he would surely become one of the most important witnesses in the entire inquiry, i.e. because he would have been the last witness to see Kelly alive and he apparently saw her in the company of a suspect called "Dan", who was possibly Joseph Barnett, at the Britannia.

Like Caroline Maxwell, whose evidence must have been considered "remotely plausible", was one of the most important witnesses in the entire inquiry?

[packers stem]

Hi John

Hi David,

Okay, fair point about the missing police reports. However, if Lewis' evidence was considered remotely plausible he would surely become one of the most important witnesses in the entire inquiry, i.e. because he would have been the last witness to see Kelly alive and he apparently saw her in the company of a suspect called "Dan", who was possibly Joseph Barnett, at the Britannia.

Of course, Israel Schwartz, if his evidence is to be believed, would also have been the last person to see a victim alive, and with a suspect, but despite not appearing at the inquest either, his evidence, at least initially, was taken so seriously that it was even commented on by the Home Secretary!

Bingo...
My thoughts entirely
I do hope people can see the parallels

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Edward;375026]Hello All

At risk of opening an old wound, I’d like to offer my thoughts on the house vs. room dust up. (sorry, but I only just now discovered this thread)

I feel that people who were familiar with number 13, Miller’s Court would refer to number 13 as a room.

Actually, they did!

In other words, people who lived in the court or who had visited number 13 would know what was behind that door: a partitioned off single room.

Naturally.

The police reports refer to number 13 as a room because the police had been inside number 13.

This is quite correct.

Number 26 Dorset Street was a house. Anyone not familiar with number 13 merely saw a door into this house. Those people would refer to number 13 as a house.

So the conclusion is that Morris Lewis might not even have known Mary Jane Kelly. And if he didnīt, we donīt know who he is speaking about.

Yet another thread evolving into a hair pulling contest … what a pity.

True. Canīt be much hair left to pull here anymore !

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

Schwartz, whose testimony was highly regarded during the stride investigation,still got nowhere near the inquest. Fact remains, we just don't know why Lewis wasn't called although he could well have been interviewed and it's highly probable that he would have been.
We can't know why he wasn't called, just like Schwartz
This is why we debate the probabilities and possibilities :-)

Frankly I think Schwartz is a very dubious witness, nonetheless, as I mentioned in my earlier post, despite not appearing at the inquest his evidence was commented on by a number of senior officers, and even the Home Secretary!

Not saw Maurice Lewis, who quickly disappeared into obscurity.

[packers stem]

Hi Packers,

What I will say is that I have always thought that coroner was unfair to Mrs Maxwell to tell her that her evidence was "different to other people's". I don't see how it contradicted any other evidence actually. Dr Phillips doesn't seem to have estimated a time of death in his testimony. Perhaps he did in writing but we now know that he couldn't possibly have done so with any degree of accuracy or certainty. As for other evidence, well perhaps the coroner had the cry of "murder" in mind as fixing the time of death but that's not very solid.

To answer your question directly: If Lewis had given evidence that he saw Kelly alive at 10am and if his evidence appeared to be given truthfully and if he gave a satisfactory account of how he knew what the time was and if the coroner was satisfied that the murder/mutilations could have been carried out within 40 minutes and if the coroner was not being told in writing by Dr Phillips that the murder was definitely carried out in the middle of the night, then under those conditions he might well have concluded that death must have occurred between 10am and 10:45am.

Hi David
Thanks for the reply

[packers stem]

Schwartz, whose testimony was highly regarded during the stride investigation,still got nowhere near the inquest. Fact remains, we just don't know why Lewis wasn't called although he could well have been interviewed and it's highly probable that he would have been.
We can't know why he wasn't called, just like Schwartz
This is why we debate the probabilities and possibilities :-)

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;375018]

More important, however, is the fact that on 9 November, long before Mrs Maxwell spoke to the Central News, the Press Association was carrying a report that Kelly had been seen drinking (albeit with Barnett) after 10am that morning. The Globe of the same afternoon said that Kelly was drinking for half an hour that morning in a small public house.

In other words, the story that Kelly was out drinking on the morning of Friday 9 November preceded Maxwell's account.

Hi David,

The police took the statements of the witnesses on Dorset Street 9 November. Mrs Maxwell was one of them. Do you know if they took them separately, or were any of the witnesses questioned together?

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

I would say: yes and no. It looks like we are missing virtually all the police reports relating to the Kelly murder so there's nothing inherently odd about the lack of any mention of Lewis in the surviving reports. But certainly his absence from the inquest raises questions about whether he was regarded as a witness of truth.

There are so many gaps in our knowledge that it's hard to come to a definitive conclusion.

Hi David,

Okay, fair point about the missing police reports. However, if Lewis' evidence was considered remotely plausible he would surely become one of the most important witnesses in the entire inquiry, i.e. because he would have been the last witness to see Kelly alive and he apparently saw her in the company of a suspect called "Dan", who was possibly Joseph Barnett, at the Britannia.

Of course, Israel Schwartz, if his evidence is to be believed, would also have been the last person to see a victim alive, and with a suspect, but despite not appearing at the inquest either, his evidence, at least initially, was taken so seriously that it was even commented on by the Home Secretary!

[David Orsam]

Hello David,

Thanks for the reply, you clearly raise some very interesting points. However, the main substantive reason I have for seriously doubting his account is the lack of any police report referring to his evidence, coupled with the fact that he didn't attend the inquest;

I would say: yes and no. It looks like we are missing virtually all the police reports relating to the Kelly murder so there's nothing inherently odd about the lack of any mention of Lewis in the surviving reports. But certainly his absence from the inquest raises questions about whether he was regarded as a witness of truth.

There are so many gaps in our knowledge that it's hard to come to a definitive conclusion.

[John G]

I don't think that's the answer though John. I'll tell you why.

We can be certain that Mrs Maxwell spoke to a Central News reporter on 10 November. Her account was first published in the evening papers on 10 November (e.g. Pall Mall Gazette) sourced to the Central News.

Lewis, however, appears to have spoken to a Lloyds Weekly News reporter because his 'statement' only appeared in LWN that weekend, being first published on 11 November (and repeated in Illustrated Police News of 17 November). For that reason alone it strikes me as rather unlikely that Lewis was present when Maxwell spoke to the Central News reporter.

More important, however, is the fact that on 9 November, long before Mrs Maxwell spoke to the Central News, the Press Association was carrying a report that Kelly had been seen drinking (albeit with Barnett) after 10am that morning. The Globe of the same afternoon said that Kelly was drinking for half an hour that morning in a small public house. In other words, the story that Kelly was out drinking on the morning of Friday 9 November preceded Maxwell's account.

Either Lewis was the source for this story – in which case there are some inconsistencies with what he told the LWN reporter – or another unidentified individual was the source. If the latter then it's possible that Lewis overheard THIS story or read about it in the evening papers and changed his account as a result, but then we are left wondering who the third person was who claimed to have seen Kelly drinking that morning.

Hello David,

Thanks for the reply, you clearly raise some very interesting points. However, the main substantive reason I have for seriously doubting his account is the lack of any police report referring to his evidence, coupled with the fact that he didn't attend the inquest; and, of course, Maxwell did attend the inquest, despite the fact that the authorities must have had concerns about the reliability of her testimony.

Thus, I consider it highly unlikely that he would not have been interviewed by the police, i.e. on 9 November. However, even if I'm wrong it is surely inconceivable that he would not have been spoken to following the subsequent newspaper reports, where it is reported that he saw Kelly significantly later than any other witness.

In fact, there is a clear precedent, and that's Matthew Packer- following his claim that he had not been interviewed by the police, despite the fact that he had seen Stride with a suspect; it transpired that he had been spoken to by Sergeant White, who recorded that he'd seen nothing suspicious. Nonetheless, following a critical newspaper on 4th October, in the Evening News, Sergeant White was instructed to make further enquiries, and he spoke to Packer again at the mortuary, where he was in the company of Grand and Batchelor.

Therefore, the lack of any police report in Lewis' case, and his non-appearance at the inquest, might be explained by Lewis withdrawing his evidence, or claiming that he'd been seriously misquoted (the police deciding not to take matters any further for fear of deterring other witnesses.) In any event, the police obviously determined that there was no reason to take his testimony seriously; and the fact that he wasn't invited to attend the inquest, or his evidence considered worthy of an official report, strongly suggests to me that something must have occurred to seriously undermine his credibility.

Maxwell is more difficult to dismiss. However, her admission that she had only briefly spoken to Kelly, or the woman she believed to be Kelly, twice in four months-and one of those occasions was from "across the street" - makes it seem likely to me that she confused Kelly with someone else (perhaps she subsequently had doubts herself, but was unwilling to admit to this for fear of appearing foolish, as well as risking consequential damage to her reputation, or even fearing that she might be prosecuted by the authorities.) And, of course, in a four month period she may well have had casual conversations with dozens, if not hundreds of people, considering how densely overcrowded the locality was: in fact, I believe Annie Chapman only lived 200 yards away so, at a stretch, even she might be regarded as a neighbour! And then there's the fact that many locals lead itinerant lifestyles, so presumably there would be residents coming and going all the time. Moreover, there would be people visiting friends or family, or just staying in the neighbourhood briefly, i.e. as a temporary guest of a resident.

And two brief conversations over a four month period implies, at the very least, that Kelly, or the woman she believed to be Kelly, wasn't someone she had much close contact with!

However, she's clearly a far more reliable witness than Lewis, and the fact that modern forensic science indicates that time of death cannot be reliably ascertained, means that her evidence cannot be entirely written off.