Morris Lewis and the reporting of his story

[John G]

Hi John
Why would she be expected to have taken any interest in the man talking to Kelly.
Had she known that within the hour a body was going to be discovered then I'm sure she would have paid more attention. Fact is a lack of psychic vision does not an unreliable witness make...
The whole point here is that the sightings were corroborated by Lewis and the times' unidentified woman to a degree, far more corroboration than any other witness.

Hi Packers,

She wouldn't, however, it illustrates that the sighting of "Kelly" was from a distance, increasing the risk of misidentification.

Lewis does not fully corroborate Maxwell, as their claimed sightings were at different times and at different locations, i.e. they were not made simultaneously.

[John G]

Hi John, thanks for your response but I still don't feel I understand your thinking. Mrs Maxwell said she and Kelly spoke to each other by name so, if she was telling the truth, there was no question of misidentification was there? What I'm really asking is why do you think she wasn't telling the truth?

As for whether it was oddly coincidental that Maxwell spoke to Kelly on the day of her death, that was really the point of the conversation, hence "What brings you so early?".

So I'm still not sure where you are coming from. Perhaps, as Fleetwood Mac said, it's that he normally killed in hours of darkness????

Hi David,

I would concede you make a good point. However, I do find it strange that she was claiming to be on first name terms with such a casual acquaintance, particularly as this was a much more formal age, and of course, this was something the coroner also commented on.

One possibility is that she realised that her evidence might not be fully accepted, i.e. because she hardly knew the victim, so she decided to beef it up by lying about the first name terms. It's also possible that the woman didn't correct Maxwell when she referred to her as "Mary" out of embarrassment, particularly as Maxwell was someone of standing in the community.

I'm not sure about Fleetwood Mac's "night time killer" argument, as JtR may well have been an opportunist: we're certainly not entitled to assume that all, or indeed any, of the murders were planned.

And, of course, Chapman was clearly not Killed at night, so there's obviously a precedent.

[John G]

Yes John, in truth it does stop eventually as no new enzymes are produced, but it does indeed carry on after death, but at a dramatically reduced rate.

steve

Hi Steve,

Thanks for this information, much appreciated. Of course, in Kelly's case even to arrive at a rough estimate we would need to know both the contents, and quantity, of her last meal, which of course we don't.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

And, as I've posted before, even for today's forensic pathologists digestion is not an accurate means for determining time of death because they are too many variables. Moreover, Dr Bond fell into error when he said digestion stopped at the time of death: "Digestion itself does not cease at death but progresses after death due to enzyme activity; the state of digestion is therefore only of little value in estimating the time." ( Payne- James et al, 2003). See:https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...estion&f=false

And, for what it's worth, a small meal takes roughly between 1-3 hours to digest (200g of boiled fish about 2-3 hours), as demonstrated in the reference above.

Yes John, in truth it does stop eventually as no new enzymes are produced, but it does indeed carry on after death, but at a dramatically reduced rate.

steve

[John G]

Dear Wickerman,

Surely that cannot be entirely accurate?

in his Statement Bond Says

" and the partly digested food would indicate: that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken, so one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder."

I see no way you can extrapolated 3 or 4 hours before death to get a time of death at: "one or two o'clock in the morning" ; Unless you have a time for that meal.

Does this not indicate that he is saying that the level of digestion basically stopped or dramatically slowed at death?

indeed given that the examination was carried out at 2pm, if digestion continued there would be virtually nothing left to examine.

It would seem he is basing his educated guess for TOD on the temperature of the body, which he does not record that he took.

regards

Steve

Hi Steve,

And, as I've posted before, even for today's forensic pathologists digestion is not an accurate means for determining time of death because they are too many variables. Moreover, Dr Bond fell into error when he said digestion stopped at the time of death: "Digestion itself does not cease at death but progresses after death due to enzyme activity; the state of digestion is therefore only of little value in estimating the time." ( Payne- James et al, 2003). See:https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...estion&f=false

And, for what it's worth, a small meal takes roughly between 1-3 hours to digest (200g of boiled fish about 2-3 hours), as demonstrated in the reference above.

[Elamarna]

Hi F.M.

As the physicians involved in the case are all working on behalf of the authorities, then their findings are equally part of the police investigation.
When food is found in the stomach it was known then by police and physicians as it is now that this is a means of indicating time of death. The digestion process was understood in the 19th century, as approximate as it was, to be a contributing factor in estimating time of death.

Dr. Bond's estimate need only be based on a comparison between fish & potatoes in their solid form as opposed to partially digested fish & potatoes.
Not necessarily the time the meal was eaten.
The assumption being that the digestion process like most bodily functions takes an average time.

Even though the physicians conclusion is guesswork, it is educated guesswork, not to be compared with our guesswork.

Dear Wickerman,

Surely that cannot be entirely accurate?

in his Statement Bond Says

" and the partly digested food would indicate: that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken, so one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder."

I see no way you can extrapolated 3 or 4 hours before death to get a time of death at: "one or two o'clock in the morning" ; Unless you have a time for that meal.

Does this not indicate that he is saying that the level of digestion basically stopped or dramatically slowed at death?

indeed given that the examination was carried out at 2pm, if digestion continued there would be virtually nothing left to examine.

It would seem he is basing his educated guess for TOD on the temperature of the body, which he does not record that he took.

regards

Steve

[Elamarna]

Dear All

While I tend to believe that Kelly was dead well before 8am, it needs to be made clear that from a purely scientific view, there is no reason to assume a time of death before 10-11am.

Any argument which suggest Morris and indeed Maxwell are unreliable purely because the Victim was already dead are not sustainable IMHO.

steve

[Wickerman]

In terms of Maxwell's testimony being unreliable:

I understand that Bond's estimated time of death is of limited value, but I place a good deal of value in JTR being a night time killer. 10am in the morning certainly wouldn't fit with his pattern of behaviour.

Hi F.M.

As the physicians involved in the case are all working on behalf of the authorities, then their findings are equally part of the police investigation.
When food is found in the stomach it was known then by police and physicians as it is now that this is a means of indicating time of death. The digestion process was understood in the 19th century, as approximate as it was, to be a contributing factor in estimating time of death.

Dr. Bond's estimate need only be based on a comparison between fish & potatoes in their solid form as opposed to partially digested fish & potatoes.
Not necessarily the time the meal was eaten.
The assumption being that the digestion process like most bodily functions takes an average time.

Even though the physicians conclusion is guesswork, it is educated guesswork, not to be compared with our guesswork.

[David Orsam]

Top quality insight from David in the initial post on this thread, particularly the observation that Lewis didn't know the identity of the victim when he gave his initial statement (the milk episode).

I rather wish you hadn't said that because on reflection, and having found some new information (or rather some old information I'd forgotten about), I think I might have been mistaken.

I'll post a new thread about this in due course.

[David Orsam]

Hi John, thanks for your response but I still don't feel I understand your thinking. Mrs Maxwell said she and Kelly spoke to each other by name so, if she was telling the truth, there was no question of misidentification was there? What I'm really asking is why do you think she wasn't telling the truth?

As for whether it was oddly coincidental that Maxwell spoke to Kelly on the day of her death, that was really the point of the conversation, hence "What brings you so early?".

So I'm still not sure where you are coming from. Perhaps, as Fleetwood Mac said, it's that he normally killed in hours of darkness????

[packers stem]

Hi John
Why would she be expected to have taken any interest in the man talking to Kelly.
Had she known that within the hour a body was going to be discovered then I'm sure she would have paid more attention. Fact is a lack of psychic vision does not an unreliable witness make...
The whole point here is that the sightings were corroborated by Lewis and the times' unidentified woman to a degree, far more corroboration than any other witness.

[John G]

Are you going to have a crack at answering this John?

Hi David,

Sorry about the late reply! I would refer you to the Times November 12 1888:

"During the whole of yesterday Sergeant Thicke, with other officers, was busily engaged in writing down the names, statements and full-particulars of persons staying at the various lodging houses in Dorset Street. That this was no easy task will be imagined when it is known that it one house alone there were upwards of 260 persons, and that several houses accommodate over 200."

Now doesn't this perfectly illustrate the difficulty of approaching a nineteenth century problem from a twenty-first century perspective? For instance, when we think of who we would classify as a neighbour today, we might have regard to a relatively small number of individuals. However, in Maxwell's case, there would have been hundreds, if not thousands, of people who could legitimately fulfil that criteria, such was the immense level of overcrowding in the locality.

And, in those days, many people lead itinerant lifestyles, so there would be residents coming and going all the time, to say nothing of temporary residents, i.e. those looking for a place to doss down for a few days, or people visiting friends or relatives.

So we have to consider Maxwell's subjective opinion, that she was certain of her identification of Kelly, objectively. Thus, it can be inferred from her own testimony that Kelly, or the person she believed to be Kelly, was only a very casual acquaintance, i .e. based on the fact that she had only briefly conversed with her twice in four months. And, over that period, Maxwell may presumably have had literally hundreds of such encounters with different women. And don't you find it a little coincidental, and somewhat convenient, that the third time she supposedly talks to Kelly is on the morning of her death? Particularly as she claimed she hadn't previously seen the woman for three weeks.

And, let's not forget, that the important second alleged sighting on the morning of Kelly's murder, outside the Britannia, was from a distance of some twenty-five yards (see Inspector Abberline's testimony at the inquest.) In fact, this was so problematic that Maxwell couldn't even describe the man Kelly was supposedly with:

Coroner: "What description can you give of this man."
Maxwell: "I could not give you any, as they were at some distance."

In summary, what we are clearly left with is the uncorroborated testimony of a witness who, by any objective criteria, cannot be be assumed to be reliable, unless she happened to have a photographic memory, because the risks of misidentification in such a densely overcrowded neighbourhood have to be regarded as being extremely high.

[packers stem]

In terms of Maxwell's testimony being unreliable:

I understand that Bond's estimated time of death is of limited value, but I place a good deal of value in JTR being a night time killer. 10am in the morning certainly wouldn't fit with his pattern of behaviour.

Hi Fleetwood Mac
Do you suspect Chapman was killed much earlier than most believe?
I'm with you, I doubt daylight killings
That alone is not a good reason for anyone to claim Maxwell is unreliable

[Fleetwood Mac]

In terms of Maxwell's testimony being unreliable:

I understand that Bond's estimated time of death is of limited value, but I place a good deal of value in JTR being a night time killer. 10am in the morning certainly wouldn't fit with his pattern of behaviour.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Top quality insight from David in the initial post on this thread, particularly the observation that Lewis didn't know the identity of the victim when he gave his initial statement (the milk episode).

I think the report stating: "there is good reason to think the murderer spent the night in the room" could do with some meat on the bones.

I wonder if this was due to finding something in the room which indicated the murderer had stayed a good length of time?