Morris Lewis and the reporting of his story

[Wickerman]

Michael, you complain about lack of evidence in support of the stories by Hutch & Maxwell, yet all you have to offer is a belief, equally without any evidence.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael, you complain about lack of evidence in support of the stories by Hutch & Maxwell, yet all you have to offer is a belief, equally without any evidence.

Im not actually offering anything Jon, Im disputing the validity of a few stories that were disputed contemporaneously, and disputed by the evidence that Bond offered. You may dispute Bonds ability to nail down a precise TOD, I do too...but you have a time of death that happens with partially digested food. That does help. Hutch is reported later that same week of having his story "discredited", and Maxwell is warned before giving her evidence that it is contradictory to the known medical data. So my dismissal of at least those 2 witnesses has some precedent.

Which presents a much different tableau....Wideawake Man may well be an accomplice if not Hutch, and if Mary had left the room shortly after the singing stopped and the room went dark, Elizabeth Prater would have seen her. Is it probable that someone who is very drunk, perhaps full, and at around 1am would sleep for an hour then get up and go out again? I think thats a stretch...having some experiences with over imbibing myself. She either leaves and douses the candle, or she lets Blotchy out....or not....and douses it before going to bed. I believe thats the most likely scenario here.

With Wideawake Man becoming potentially malicious again, without ol' Georgies fancies in the way, it seems to me that Blotchy wouldnt be the primary suspect anymore. Because this lookout shows up much later, presumably to watch for someone who also arrives later. It seems to me its probable Blotchy left before Wideawake arrived, maybe because Blotchy did his part and left. Got her drunk, back to her room, and off to sleep. And a bit later on....down the stone archway.....the man who cuts her up.

The odd thing here, for me anyway, is that the cry of "oh-murder" I believe was from Mary as she opened the door to find someone who had been lightly tapping on it...enough to wake Diddles upstairs. The odd part is I believe that means she let him in. There were no noises heard after that cry, no immediate assault. The man was there with her permission.

Which means its someone she knows well.

[The Rookie Detective]

Im not actually offering anything Jon, Im disputing the validity of a few stories that were disputed contemporaneously, and disputed by the evidence that Bond offered. You may dispute Bonds ability to nail down a precise TOD, I do too...but you have a time of death that happens with partially digested food. That does help. Hutch is reported later that same week of having his story "discredited", and Maxwell is warned before giving her evidence that it is contradictory to the known medical data. So my dismissal of at least those 2 witnesses has some precedent.

Which presents a much different tableau....Wideawake Man may well be an accomplice if not Hutch, and if Mary had left the room shortly after the singing stopped and the room went dark, Elizabeth Prater would have seen her. Is it probable that someone who is very drunk, perhaps full, and at around 1am would sleep for an hour then get up and go out again? I think thats a stretch...having some experiences with over imbibing myself. She either leaves and douses the candle, or she lets Blotchy out....or not....and douses it before going to bed. I believe thats the most likely scenario here.

With Wideawake Man becoming potentially malicious again, without ol' Georgies fancies in the way, it seems to me that Blotchy wouldnt be the primary suspect anymore. Because this lookout shows up much later, presumably to watch for someone who also arrives later. It seems to me its probable Blotchy left before Wideawake arrived, maybe because Blotchy did his part and left. Got her drunk, back to her room, and off to sleep. And a bit later on....down the stone archway.....the man who cuts her up.

The odd thing here, for me anyway, is that the cry of "oh-murder" I believe was from Mary as she opened the door to find someone who had been lightly tapping on it...enough to wake Diddles upstairs. The odd part is I believe that means she let him in. There were no noises heard after that cry, no immediate assault. The man was there with her permission.

Which means its someone she knows well.

I think you touch on a very important point.

There has always been that feeling that it was more personal with MJK

Not just in terms of her injuries inflicted; but because she was dispatched in her own room situated in a communal court.

Added to the fact that we have Morris/Maurice Lewis and George Hutchinson who claimed to have known her relatively well, placing themselves at the crime scene and yet getting lost in the wind and vanishing without trace.


I find that particularly odd.


If the killer wasn't acquainted with MJK, then why was she found in just her chemise in November, with no sign of forced entry into her room.

The killer may have been a punter of course; but there is evidence to suggest that she was soliciting. Her female room mate however was soliciting and allegedly out of MJK's own good will to take her in.

That means that the killer must have known he wouldn't be disturbed.

How did he know that unless he was privy to her personal arrangements and movements?

She may have told her killer directly without her realising the implications, but it would be more plausible if the killer already knew more about Kelly than we care to realise.


RD

[Wickerman]

Im not actually offering anything Jon,...

But isn't your "much different tableau...", in the 2nd paragraph, precisely that?

Im disputing the validity of a few stories that were disputed contemporaneously, and disputed by the evidence that Bond offered. You may dispute Bonds ability to nail down a precise TOD, I do too...but you have a time of death that happens with partially digested food. That does help. Hutch is reported later that same week of having his story "discredited", and Maxwell is warned before giving her evidence that it is contradictory to the known medical data. So my dismissal of at least those 2 witnesses has some precedent.

Yet, the suggestion of "discredit" only came from one newspaper source (Star). The very same newspaper continues to report on Hutch's story, and their competitor (Echo) reports the police are still investigating Hutch's story.
So why do you continue to believe a discredited story about, a "discredited" story?
I suggest it is because you ignore what does not support your narrative.

Which presents a much different tableau....

Here comes your belief....

[c.d.]

That means that the killer must have known he wouldn't be disturbed.

How did he know that unless he was privy to her personal arrangements and movements?

She may have told her killer directly without her realising the implications, but it would be more plausible if the killer already knew more about Kelly than we care to realise.

How would that be more plausible? You already mentioned the simplest explanation which would be that she told him.

As for her knowing her killer, the question always has to be how exactly did she know him? It doesn't automatically imply an intimate relationship it also could have been someone she met earlier in the day. "Knowing" runs a wide gamut.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi again Jon,

But isn't your "much different tableau...", in the 2nd paragraph, precisely that?

It is one of many possibilities that do exist if you remove the statements that contemporary investigators seemed inclined to dismiss, I never said this was my personal favourite, just that when those statements are gone, the "tableau" can be very different from what is currently believed. I do find some amusement that whenever simple logical progressions are made they somehow become the authors "theory". A logical progression or logical deduction requires factoring in all that is known and then filtering it until you get what must be the most probable answers. They dont belong to anyone, they are simply a logical deduction. Not MY logical deduction. If I suggest that since there is no noise heard after the cry of "oh-murder", by either of the 2 witnesses who reported they heard it at the same time, the most logical deduction would be that a deadly assault did not occur immediately after that cry. Thats not MIKES logical deduction, its a logical deduction that any sentient person would make. Perhaps arguing what is logically and reasonable simply puts the objector, not the one who made the statement, in the hot seat.


Yet, the suggestion of "discredit" only came from one newspaper source (Star). The very same newspaper continues to report on Hutch's story, and their competitor (Echo) reports the police are still investigating Hutch's story.
So why do you continue to believe a discredited story about, a "discredited" story?
I suggest it is because you ignore what does not support your narrative.

You can suggest anything you want Jon, doesnt mean you have correctly interpreted the message though. His story is in an article that states his story was discredited. Yes? So why are you arguing with me. Do you have proof they were incorrect when they printed that..or is your "proof" just that no-one else seems interested in printing that article too? I pretty much I can guarantee other reports do exist, though since youve been obstinate its only the 1, you can find them yourself. Im happy to help people that actually want the truth, not so much the people who believe THEIR truth triumphs all.

Here comes your belief....

......and its that Hutchinson story was stated as discredited in a newspaper article that same week, actually by the 15th or 16th,..and that we have no evidence or proof that Mrs Maxwell or Hutchinson ever knew Mary personally or saw her that night after midnight Thursday, or on Friday morning. But there is evidence the man who did the autopsy, a leading medical authority in the area, believed she died perhaps as much as 7 hours before Maxwell said she saw her alive on the street. The fact of a story of discredit, and a belief of Bonds skill over Maxwells untested and unproven relationship to Mary Kelly. She even says Mary said "oh-Corrie"......like Mary knew her well. Like Mary hung with " respectable" meddlesome women in the neighbourhood that looked down upon her and her friends as street trash.

So my belief, summarized, is that Hutchs story was discredited so Wideawake is not Hutch...(or is Hutch but not there for the reasons he gave to police), and we have no proof that Mrs Maxwell saw Mary Kelly alive on the street around 8 or 9 that Friday morning, or that she, or Hutch, knew Mary Kelly at all. In point of fact, we have contemporary medical opinion that she was wrong.

Go ahead....tell me how thats just my own "theory", and not just an obvious, logical deduction that could be done by any logically minded person.

[Michael W Richards]

That means that the killer must have known he wouldn't be disturbed.

How did he know that unless he was privy to her personal arrangements and movements?

She may have told her killer directly without her realising the implications, but it would be more plausible if the killer already knew more about Kelly than we care to realise.

How would that be more plausible? You already mentioned the simplest explanation which would be that she told him.

As for her knowing her killer, the question always has to be how exactly did she know him? It doesn't automatically imply an intimate relationship it also could have been someone she met earlier in the day. "Knowing" runs a wide gamut.

c.d.

Allowing someone to come into a room in the middle of the night when in all likelihood she had been passed out in her chemise up until that time, suggests an intimate relationship cd. And we KNOW Mary was seeing 2 men simultaneously, she said so herself....and the other Joe,...whoever he is, is an intimate friend. So theres at least one other intimate friend,...and she could well have had others.

[c.d.]

Allowing someone to come into a room in the middle of the night when in all likelihood she had been passed out in her chemise up until that time, suggests an intimate relationship cd.

I disagree. I think it only suggests she knew him in some way maybe just very casually. Given her line of work, just how discerning do you think she could afford to be? Just because Mary was seeing two different men doesn't necessarily connect them to the murder and I see no reason to do so.

c.d.

[c.d.]

My guess is that it was someone (Jack) who she had met maybe earlier in the week and she told him to come by sometime. I think it was an appointment. Maybe she had been expecting him earlier but I think it was an appointment all the same.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

...So my belief, summarized, is that Hutchs story was discredited so Wideawake is not Hutch...(or is Hutch but not there for the reasons he gave to police),...

Hello Michael.
The above is something you keep repeating in spite of learning that the police never discredited Hutchinson.
The same Star newspaper published the Gallowey story the next day (16th), a story where a constable was looking for a man of a very different appearance (to Blotchy). Which contradicts their own claim of the previous day (15th) that Hutchinson's story had been 'discredited', clearly it had not.

The police were still on the lookout for this fancy-dressed individual.
Not only that, but the Echo published a story on the 19th that reads:
"Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion, with a dark moustache."

So, Michael, isn't it time you dropped this false illusion of his story being truly discredited?

I have no issue with dismissing Maxwell, I don't have a satisfactory explanation except that she must have seen someone else.
It's not the best explanation, but there's no adequate conspiracy that fits all the facts.

[Michael W Richards]

Allowing someone to come into a room in the middle of the night when in all likelihood she had been passed out in her chemise up until that time, suggests an intimate relationship cd.

I disagree. I think it only suggests she knew him in some way maybe just very casually. Given her line of work, just how discerning do you think she could afford to be? Just because Mary was seeing two different men doesn't necessarily connect them to the murder and I see no reason to do so.

c.d.

You disagree? Despite having evidence that Mary had never brought clients to that room before,...ever... and Barnett was living there the whole time until the Tuesday of that week and he objected to her working the streets, her rent is 2 1/2 weeks behind likely due to her not working the streets due to her fear of what had been happening......point here is cd that she wasnt working the streets regularly up to that point, and she arrived home Thursday night so drunk she could barely say hi to Mary Ann.

There is reality and some peoples perceptions of what the reality really was.....the reality is that she wasnt working, she was hung over and undressed when her killer arrives....or if it was Blotchy, he was already there. But then, if he was there, who cried out "oh-murder"? There is only 1 person in the courtyard that could not lay claim to having uttered those words at that time, because she was dead.

And as for whether she knew the man, which you seem skeptical about... if he arrived at that "oh-murder" time, just before 4am.......lets just say this cd.......in 2021 in the United States 76% of the female murders and 56% of the male murders were committed by "by someone known to the victim."

Maybe before just blowing off valid suggestions some understanding of those numbers might help you.

[Michael W Richards]

My guess is that it was someone (Jack) who she had met maybe earlier in the week and she told him to come by sometime. I think it was an appointment. Maybe she had been expecting him earlier but I think it was an appointment all the same.

c.d.

Again, there is evidence that she wasnt working regularly, that she didnt allow clients into her own room... in her own name, and a cry of "oh-murder" that didnt signal the start of any murders around 4am...(no noise after that cry)....indicating it was most likely an expression of shock, dismay or annoyance. Now youd like to imagine her booking appointments, in her room, for 4am Friday morning after a night of drinking? Your imagination runs rampant cd.

Perhaps you should factor in the knowns before wildly speculating on something that is easily disputed.

[c.d.]

Perhaps you should factor in the knowns before wildly speculating on something that is easily disputed.

Thanks for the advice. I'll try to keep that in mind next time before I post.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi again Jon, same bs argument, but different post, huh?

The above is something you keep repeating in spite of learning that the police never discredited Hutchinson.
The same Star newspaper published the Gallowey story the next day (16th), a story where a constable was looking for a man of a very different appearance (to Blotchy). Which contradicts their own claim of the previous day (15th) that Hutchinson's story had been 'discredited', clearly it had not.

I guess you must have some information that the rank and file beat cops were updated about the investigations status immediately?

The police were still on the lookout for this fancy-dressed individual.
Not only that, but the Echo published a story on the 19th that reads:
"Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion, with a dark moustache."

So, Michael, isn't it time you dropped this false illusion of his story being truly discredited?

You argue with me based on what some cops expressed personal beliefs about and despite a news article that said his story WAS discredited? Jeez......opinions are just that.....Abberline believed Schwartz and Hutchinson yet Schwartz is not important to the Inquest and Hutch was discredited according to THE REPORT.... Fred also stated in 1903 that he thought Godley caught the Ripper who was Chapman, Anderson believed the killer had been identified as an immigrant jew, Monro believed no-one saw the actual killer with a victim, Arnold said that there were only 4 victims...the last being Mary Kelly in Mitre Square?,... Macnaughten thought Druitt was the Ripper, and he was likely floating when Mary is killed,...he also named 3 likely suspects, 1 was the suicide victim Druitt, and 1 was the incarcerated at the time Ostrog, and Monro said that Sir Melville also said that he "appears to identify the Ripper with the leader of a plot to assassinate Mr Balfour at the Irish Office", Smith had no clue who he was, .....I would suggest that an investigators personal opinion is as valuable when solving a murder case as is having a spoon when you need a knife.

The point being.....obviously using a personal opinion of an investigator, officer or rank and file, is fraught with problems. So Galloway hears that they had been looking for Hutchinsons character by description from a street cop....and you find that compelling evidence, that the investigation of Hutchinsons story was cited by a street cop as being active at that time? And You dont find an article that sates his story was investigated and discredited valid? I guess we can add your personal opinion to the ones above, since they offered no real evidence either.

I have no issue with dismissing Maxwell, I don't have a satisfactory explanation except that she must have seen someone else. It's not the best explanation, but there's no adequate conspiracy that fits all the facts.

That may well be, or maybe she saw no-one and just wanted some spotlight. We will likely never know for sure, but we can be fairly positive that whomever she saw was not a dead woman from room 13

What a cop says his opinion is is not an official stated position of an investigation. You really should already know that.

[Michael W Richards]

Perhaps you should factor in the knowns before wildly speculating on something that is easily disputed.

Thanks for the advice. I'll try to keep that in mind next time before I post.

c.d.

No, you wont. But you are entitled to believe what you will cd.