Morris Lewis and the reporting of his story

[David Orsam]

Hi David
Could it be that Maxwell's testimony combined with Lewis had he been called would have forced the coroner to place TOD at 10am or later?

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.

[Elamarna]

Yes. And why light a big fire in the morning to see what he was doing? Sunrise started 07.07.

Pierre

Yes Pierre, I agree, the murder almost certainly took place before 7am, I won't say it did categorically has we do not have the evidence to confirm that.

Equally, it cannot be proved that a large fire was lit to provide light for the killer, that is just one possibility, even if it is one of the stronger ones.

Your point is never the less a very valid question.

steve

[Pierre]

Hi Packers,
we spare again

This requires us to believe in a wide ranging conspiracy which at present I see no reason to.
There starts to become a real problem with a time of death after 10am. How short a time do you suggest this butchery could be completed in, we are given a time of 10.45 for Bowyer's discovery.
While I am prepared to concede that if the killing took place between 8.30 and 10am, it may be possible; after 10am becomes very difficult.
The streets are busier, people claim to remember seeing MJK that morning, but no one recalls someone walking out of the court, possibly, given the degree of butchery, with some blood on either his clothing or hands, (or course it is suggested that there were washing facilities in #13, and while not proven 100% that would only, one assumes allow the hands to be washed.)
In addition, he has to avoid Bowyer. This just seems unrealistic.

Steve

Yes. And why light a big fire in the morning to see what he was doing? Sunrise started 07.07.

Pierre

[Pierre]

I think it's perfectly possible that Lewis heard of Maxwell's account, possibly he was even there when she spoke to the reporter, and then fabricated a story based on her evidence.

This would explain why his "evidence" keeps changing/evolving in various newspaper accounts, which as David rightly points out, "calls into question his credibility and reliability."

It would also explain why he wasn't called as witness: I think it's inconceivable that the police didn't speak to him and, therefore, he possibly admitted that he'd made the whole thing up.

[B]
Morris Lewis didnīt have to make anything up. There is not one source where Morris Lewis said that he saw Kelly coming out of or going into her room.

There are only newspaper articles giving a small range of different wordings, which means they are not reliable.

And the validity is equally low: There are statements of a "house". Which house? Where?

There are statements of a "woman" What woman? Who?

One journalist is interpreting "woman" as "deceased". One of many others, who say "woman".

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

I think it's perfectly possible that Lewis heard of Maxwell's account, possibly he was even there when she spoke to the reporter, and then fabricated a story based on her evidence.

This would explain why his "evidence" keeps changing/evolving in various newspaper accounts, which as David rightly points out, "calls into question his credibility and reliability."

It would also explain why he wasn't called as witness: I think it's inconceivable that the police didn't speak to him and, therefore, he possibly admitted that he'd made the whole thing up.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve
I agree, it's unrealistic and I'm pretty sure you know what I suspect happened.
No my question relates solely as to what the coroner's options would have been with 2 witnesses indicating she was alive at 10
Would he have set after ten as TOD or would he have sought further identification of the body

Yes I know exactly what you are thinking.
almost certainly would have gone for further ID, setting TOD after 10 would never be accepted.

However and we are back to a day ago, we do not know for sure that a very firm ID did not take place.

if however he did have a firm id, that could not be disputed, and they still stayed with their stories, what then?

steve

[packers stem]

Hi Packers,
we spare again

This requires us to believe in a wide ranging conspiracy which at present I see no reason to.
There starts to become a real problem with a time of death after 10am. How short a time do you suggest this butchery could be completed in, we are given a time of 10.45 for Bowyer's discovery.
While I am prepared to concede that if the killing took place between 8.30 and 10am, it may be possible; after 10am becomes very difficult.
The streets are busier, people claim to remember seeing MJK that morning, but no one recalls someone walking out of the court, possibly, given the degree of butchery, with some blood on either his clothing or hands, (or course it is suggested that there were washing facilities in #13, and while not proven 100% that would only, one assumes allow the hands to be washed.)
In addition, he has to avoid Bowyer. This just seems unrealistic.

Steve

Hi Steve
I agree, it's unrealistic and I'm pretty sure you know what I suspect happened.
No my question relates solely as to what the coroner's options would have been with 2 witnesses indicating she was alive at 10
Would he have set after ten as TOD or would he have sought further identification of the body

[Elamarna]

Hi David
Could it be that Maxwell's testimony combined with Lewis had he been called would have forced the coroner to place TOD at 10am or later?

Hi Packers,
we spare again

This requires us to believe in a wide ranging conspiracy which at present I see no reason to.
There starts to become a real problem with a time of death after 10am. How short a time do you suggest this butchery could be completed in, we are given a time of 10.45 for Bowyer's discovery.
While I am prepared to concede that if the killing took place between 8.30 and 10am, it may be possible; after 10am becomes very difficult.
The streets are busier, people claim to remember seeing MJK that morning, but no one recalls someone walking out of the court, possibly, given the degree of butchery, with some blood on either his clothing or hands, (or course it is suggested that there were washing facilities in #13, and while not proven 100% that would only, one assumes allow the hands to be washed.)
In addition, he has to avoid Bowyer. This just seems unrealistic.

Steve

[packers stem]

Only if you are a conspiracist.

What if you're a coroner?

[GUT]

Hi David
Could it be that Maxwell's testimony combined with Lewis had he been called would have forced the coroner to place TOD at 10am or later?

Only if you are a conspiracist.

[packers stem]

All that really matters is whether he could identify her. There are two obvious problems with his story though. Firstly, the fact that no-one else came forward who saw MJK in the Britannia that morning (albeit that Mrs M said she saw Kelly outside it) and, secondly, that he wasn't called as a witness at the inquest. Those weigh on my mind far more than any reported inconsistencies in his story.

Hi David
Could it be that Maxwell's testimony combined with Lewis had he been called would have forced the coroner to place TOD at 10am or later?

[David Orsam]

I have said before that he probably Knew of her, but may not have known her as such. Indeed it is possible he knew Barnett, and knew MJK was his Girl.

However I still concluded that the accuracy of his statements is at the lower end of reliable.

All that really matters is whether he could identify her. There are two obvious problems with his story though. Firstly, the fact that no-one else came forward who saw MJK in the Britannia that morning (albeit that Mrs M said she saw Kelly outside it) and, secondly, that he wasn't called as a witness at the inquest. Those weigh on my mind far more than any reported inconsistencies in his story.

[Elamarna]

Well here's my thinking for what it's worth. The obvious explanation is that Morris Lewis thought that Joe Barnett was called "Dan". But if he saw Kelly with Dan Barnett on Thursday evening and thought it was Joe, that doesn't affect his credibility, in my opinion, because it means he was able to identify Kelly. If he could identify her on Thursday night then he could identify her just as well on Friday morning.

Moreover, the fact that Joe Barnett confirmed at the inquest that he had been with Mary and another woman on the Thursday evening and Lewis said that he saw Mary drinking with her ex-boyfriend and a woman on the same Thursday evening only enhances Lewis' credibility if anything. And don't forget he told the LWN reporter that Kelly's man had left her only a fortnight earlier (it was 10 days earlier but not far off). So he seemed to know something about her.

David

I have said before that he probably Knew of her, but may not have known her as such. Indeed it is possible he knew Barnett, and knew MJK was his Girl.

However I still concluded that the accuracy of his statements is at the lower end of reliable.

steve

[David Orsam]

Who knows, expect he was reported as being seen with the two women, I'm just looking to see if there is a logical explanation, seeing as we can't question the witness to see how accurate the report was.

Well here's my thinking for what it's worth. The obvious explanation is that Morris Lewis thought that Joe Barnett was called "Dan". But if he saw Kelly with Dan Barnett on Thursday evening and thought it was Joe, that doesn't affect his credibility, in my opinion, because it means he was able to identify Kelly. If he could identify her on Thursday night then he could identify her just as well on Friday morning.

Moreover, the fact that Joe Barnett confirmed at the inquest that he had been with Mary and another woman on the Thursday evening and Lewis said that he saw Mary drinking with her ex-boyfriend and a woman on the same Thursday evening only enhances Lewis' credibility if anything. And don't forget he told the LWN reporter that Kelly's man had left her only a fortnight earlier (it was 10 days earlier but not far off). So he seemed to know something about her.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;374908]

Pierre

So now you want to limit the use of language to "leaving the interior of the building", thereby changing the question again.


That is NOT what I am saying. I am not changing the question, that question was about Lewis and his reported response to a person leaving 13 Millers Court. Given as you asked the question in the first instance you are well aware of that.


Bias and view are not the same thing. I have a lot of bias, but I do not have a view.


Sorry, given your previous comments on that issue, you most certainly do have a view, you may wish to deny such. That is ok with me, it is your right.
Others will read threads (the sources) and make there own minds up.


"Lewis is unreliable": Oh, dear. Now you have got it all wrong, Steve. It is not primarily Lewis who is unreliable, it is the sources. Of course Lewis might have a tendency and he might be unreliable, but the question was a question about the reliability of the sources. As I said from the beginning:
"This is a source problem."

Please donīt mix the sources produced by journalists with the person speaking in the sources.

You obviously missed my edit, I said he was of low reliability, of course we do not know if he himself was unreliable as an individual and I should have said such, my unintentional omission.
However if the only sources we have with regards to his statements are unreliable, the statements themselves must also be unreliable.


Given that all we have are the reports in the papers, and no actually quotes from Lewis himself, are you not yourself mixing "sources produced by journalists with the person speaking in the sources"

You continually use the words Source and Scientific, to attempt to defend your positions, what ever they may be, and to portray that position as one of academic superiority to others. That is fine.


Let us agree to disagree then my friend.

Steve