Morris Lewis and the reporting of his story

[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.

[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.

[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....

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[The Rookie Detective]

Bump up


RD

[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 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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.