Morris Lewis and the reporting of his story

[John G]

Hi Jon,

yes any food in the cavity had obviously stopped being digested, however all that tells us is that in Bonds professional opinion, which appears to agree with all the sources on such matters, death occurred around 3-4 hours after the meal. it does not give us a reliable time of death.

regards

Steve

Hello Steve,

But the 3-4 hours is not necessarily accarate. For instance, 200g of boiled fish will take roughly 2-3 hours to digest. Moreover, in Kelly's case the food hadn't completely digested.

Moreover, as I've noted, there is a lack of longitudinal studies on this subject, so any estimates should be treated with caution.

[The Good Michael]

True Phil, but regardless how you choose to interpret Abberline's words, either possibility is also supposition.

"Known her about three years", says nothing for the time in between.

Jon,

It doesn't specifically, but if I were to say I've known someone for 5 years, my intention would be that in that span, we've seen and heard from each other. It doesn't say how often, however, but it implies more than just an initial meeting and then...nothing.

Mike

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Here are my responses:



If Kelly met her killer shortly after 9am then I personally can't see any problem in those things being done in one and a half hours. A few of the things you mention are very quick indeed. Walking back to room from Britannia: 2 minutes? Starting fire: 1 minute? Being killed: 10 seconds? Escape: 1 minute?

After 10am makes it tight but we would, I think, need an expert opinion before ruling it out.



I don't think that what you are suggesting is actually possible.



Interesting that you say "screams". I'll come back to that.

It's tempting to rely on the cry of "murder" for the time of death but Prater said in her statement that she didn't take much notice of it because "I frequently hear such cries from the back of the lodging-house where the windows look into Millers Court". At the inquest she confirmed: "It was nothing uncommon to hear cries of murder so I took no notice".

That being so - her clear evidence - how can we possibly rely on such a thing for the time of death?

There are some odd things about the evidence relating to this anyway.

Prater, living almost above Kelly's room, said in her evidence: "the voice was in a faint voice". According to the Daily Telegraph report she said it was a "suppressed cry".

Sarah Lewis, however, in 2 Millers Court, said, according to the Telegraph: "I heard a female's voice shouting 'Murder' loudly".

Odd, no?

Then what about Prater's statement of 9 November. In that she said:

"I heard screams of murder about two or three times in a female voice".

But at the inquest, when asked if she heard the cry of murder a second time, she said "no" according to the Telegraph.

One single scream. So why did she originally say she had heard two or three screams? What do we make of that?

And then what about Mary Ann Cox who came into her room at 3am and then didn't go to sleep for the rest of the night. She said "I should have heard any cry of murder I heard nothing".

Are you seeing any discrepancies here?



But the doctor came to his conclusion based mainly on digestion of food in the stomach about which it was not medically possible for him to produce a reliable estimate of the time of death. Nor on rigor or rigidity for that matter. The police might as well have brought a psychic in for his or her opinion. Such an estimate would have been just as scientifically worthless as the doctor's.

Hi David
Thanks for the response.

If Kelly met her killer shortly after 9am then I personally can't see any problem in those things being done in one and a half hours. A few of the things you mention are very quick indeed. Walking back to room from Britannia: 2 minutes? Starting fire: 1 minute? Being killed: 10 seconds? Escape: 1 minute?

After 10am makes it tight but we would, I think, need an expert opinion before ruling it out.

agree. after 10am would make it extremely tight!

I don't think that what you are suggesting is actually possible.

You don't think police, detectives and/or doctors could tell by looking at the blood/staines dryness that a victim had been killed several hours before as opposed to minutes?

I think me or you could probably tell the difference. but maybe not-obviously just guessing here.

Are you seeing any discrepancies here?

Yes. Thank you for posting all that. but not very big ones. I see two women who heard basically the same thing with minor differences. admittedly I place a lot of credence and possibly a time for the start of attack on mary Kelly by this. even though "oh murder" was commonly heard in the area, I still see too much coincidence in the fact that a women, close by was actually murdered.

now all that being said, I used to place much more emphasis on it. but recently I saw a true crime show, where a murdered women by gun shot, was thought that TOD was in the middle of the night because two people heard what they though twere gun shots at that time.
Turns out the woman was murdered much later in the daylight morning and the supposed gunshots were unrelated. so its obviously possible.

[Phil Carter]

Jon,

It doesn't specifically, but if I were to say I've known someone for 5 years, my intention would be that in that span, we've seen and heard from each other. It doesn't say how often, however, but it implies more than just an initial meeting and then...nothing.

Mike

Hello GM,

So what would you call..

Ive known her on and off for three years?


Additionally Jon,


"Back from Romford" indicates his living status was in the East End. It also indicates it because he was trying to live just up at the end of Dorset Street.
It also indicates that because he knew the Place well enough..he carted a pc around With him trying to identify the bloke he said he saw. Now.. that tells me Hutchinson knew the area well. It also tells me he regularly ived in the near vicinity.. which would tell me that he saw Kelly more than once in Three years.

Also.. the conversation between them.. if he could lend her a sixpence... as she remembered his name quite automatically...didnt say "hello old ****..lovely t' see you after so long" or Words of that effect.. if is casual banter.. used With People one sees on a regular basis Id surmise.

Now all of this goes against this "once in Three years " stuff. Sorry Jon. It shows a weighty advance for thinking that Hutchinson knew Kelly well. Women change their appearance in Three years too.



Phil

[The Good Michael]

Hello GM,

So what would you call..

Ive known her on and off for three years?

that would at least be similar to what I said, but without knowing intent, it's tough to make it more. If I said it, it would mean that I began to know her 3 years ago, but because we worked in different places and weren't in same circles, I would only see her periodically...let's say every few months. Does that help?

Mike

[Phil Carter]

that would at least be similar to what I said, but without knowing intent, it's tough to make it more. If I said it, it would mean that I began to know her 3 years ago, but because we worked in different places and weren't in same circles, I would only see her periodically...let's say every few months. Does that help?

Mike

So... known her for Three years... given (as I explained in the same vein to Jon in the same post) the proximity suggestions of Hutchinson... does that still weigh heavier on once in Three years in Your opinion?

Phil

[David Orsam]

You don't think police, detectives and/or doctors could tell by looking at the blood/staines dryness that a victim had been killed several hours before as opposed to minutes?

I think me or you could probably tell the difference. but maybe not-obviously just guessing here.

No, not once the blood has dried. In that event I'm fairly sure there would be no difference between the scene after 15 minutes as after 15 hours. Dry blood is dry blood. Once the body starts to decompose and smell then, sure, you'd know it's been a while but prior to that I don't know what's in your mind as an indicator of time of death.

[Elamarna]

No, not once the blood has dried. In that event I'm fairly sure there would be no difference between the scene after 15 minutes as after 15 hours. Dry blood is dry blood. Once the body starts to decompose and smell then, sure, you'd know it's been a while but prior to that I don't know what's in your mind as an indicator of time of death.

David

Almost all, if not all, of the stains would have been dry given the gap between discover and entry, around 3 hours.
So you are right about that.

If the Police had entered at say 11am, then Abby's point may have been more relevant; of course they did not.

Steve

[Abby Normal]

David

Almost all, if not all, of the stains would have been dry given the gap between discover and entry, around 3 hours.
So you are right about that.

If the Police had entered at say 11am, then Abby's point may have been more relevant; of course they did not.

Steve

Hi El and David
I had forgotten that it took everyone a while to finally get in, I was thinking about the time she was discovered by bowyer as about the time the police would have seen her close up. My mistake.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Fleetwood Mac,

You may very well be right. However, I do think it's possible that he could have killed during daylight hours, i.e. if the opportunity presented itself and the urge to kill overwhelmed him . After all, the evidence suggests he didn't have a great deal of self restraint, i e. because of the risks he took.

That said, instinctively I feel that Kelly probably was killed in the early hours of the morning-before the sun rose-so we're in agreement there. However, I cannot rule out the possibility that she was killed later, even after 9:00am, as the medical evidence doesn't rule this out and the witness statements are conflicting.

Hi John,

I agree, of course it's possible. And these people aren't exactly rational so who would be surprised in the event JTR went against the grain. I think we do have a pattern to fall back on, but this pattern isn't a cast-iron guarantee.

The witness statements aren't necessarily conflicting. No one saw Kelly dead or attacked before 9/10 am. There may be doubt as to how well Maxwell knew Kelly, but really there isn't much in the way of witness statements involving Kelly from 10pm onwards.

There is an obvious problem though in that he has a lot more work to do to get in and out of the house in daylight without drawing attention to himself than he does at night.

I also tend to think that as she was killed in her bed, he was there under the pretence of staying the night.

[Wickerman]

Jon,

It doesn't specifically, but if I were to say I've known someone for 5 years, my intention would be that in that span, we've seen and heard from each other. It doesn't say how often, however, but it implies more than just an initial meeting and then...nothing.

Mike

Mike.

Agreed, if you said that, but these are Abberline's words, not Hutchinson's.
Abberline is not quoting, more like paraphrasing.

[The Good Michael]

Mike.

Agreed, if you said that, but these are Abberline's words, not Hutchinson's.
Abberline is not quoting, more like paraphrasing.

It doesn't really matter much. The gist of the scrawled words are that Hutchinson knew Kelly. There is no indication of intimacy by any means there, nor of a close friendship. That is impossible to deduce. At face value, he knew her and saw her about and said, "Hello" on occasion and "What's up". That is if he was telling the truth. If he was lying about everything, his lie was smart enough to show that he knew her enough to check on her, but gave no indication of a deeper friendship which would have put his story in jeopardy. Now, if he lied, he was too stupid to have nuanced his argument like that as his coming forward at all, for no real reason as he wasn't being sought, was asinine.

Mike

[Phil Carter]

It doesn't really matter much. The gist of the scrawled words are that Hutchinson knew Kelly. There is no indication of intimacy by any means there, nor of a close friendship. That is impossible to deduce. At face value, he knew her and saw her about and said, "Hello" on occasion and "What's up". That is if he was telling the truth. If he was lying about everything, his lie was smart enough to show that he knew her enough to check on her, but gave no indication of a deeper friendship which would have put his story in jeopardy. Now, if he lied, he was too stupid to have nuanced his argument like that as his coming forward at all, for no real reason as he wasn't being sought, was asinine.

Mike

Hello Mike,

Id agree to that extent Mike... But "coming back from Romford", staying at a place at the end of Dorset Street, showing a policeman around the area to look for the man he saw... all indicates that he is a local. That in turn gives creedance to him knowing Kelly more than now and then.

Additionally, the conversation between them wasn't of the nature of someone rarely seen by Kelly. It was clear that she knew him well enough to ask him for a monetary favour... which is strange... as she was clearly being chatted up by a trick...who...would give her....Money...Duh!

Now that Plays great weight on whether the "Three Years" is of a duration in terms of constant time, or once in a blue moon over a period of Three years??


Phil

[The Rookie Detective]

Bump up


RD

[Michael W Richards]

After re-reading this thread I am reminded how easy it is to accept things here, and how difficult it is to challenge. To use an obviously discredited account by George Hutchinson and relying on witness statement who was warned before giving it at the Inquest that her story didnt fit with the medical data..or anyone elses stories...is just accepting at face value what a witness said. In this case, 2 witnesses who both claimed to know the deceased personally without any real evidence supporting that claim. In fact in Georges case, a 4 day wait before coming forward should be enough to tell anyone that at that point, his coming forward was just to serve his own purposes, not the investigations. That purpose was in part I believe to place himself as a friend of the deceased in a Wideawake Hat, lessening the chance that the Wideawake Man would be seen as a possible accomplice. Which he initially was, based on the issuance of a pardon for accomplices....which was a unique strategy as relates to the Ripper murder actions taken by the authorities.

They believed Wideawake knew something....and George tried to make him less interesting.