Morris Lewis and the reporting of his story

[David Orsam]

But that is not our research question. The question was if the sources for Morris Lewis are reliable. The next question I posed was if Maurice Lewis even once used the word "room". It seems he did not. Then I looked at the police investigation and found the witnesses using the word "room" instead of "house". Given the source hierarchy, the police sources are more valuable. But the first question was NOT if other people used the word "room" or "house". It was the wrong question and David tried it on the newspaper articles, which are not sufficient for answering that particular question. I was asking him about Morris Lewis - not about "people" or even "normal people".

1. We don't actually know what Lewis said because he wasn't quoted.

2. The use of the word "room" by the witnesses is irrelevant because (a) none of them were speaking about Kelly entering or exiting 13 Millers Court and (b) virtually all those you have quoted had actually been inside 13 Millers Court and knew it was a single room (any others would have known from living in the court or number 26 that it was a room).

3. The police described 13 Millers Court as a room in a house, something which you have ignored for about 10 posts now.

4. My reference to "normal people" was to people, who did not know the layout of 13 Millers Court, who saw Kelly emerging from her front door. Would they say "house" or "room"? Clearly they would say "house" and you have not produced a single source or witness which shows otherwise.

[David Orsam]

And now, the next problem is that the newspaper sources are certainly NOT reliable for deducing knowledge about what "normal people" called the dwellings of Mary Jane Kelly. The police investigation is much more reliable. So if we would like to know what people in general called it, we must use this source. But that was not the question we started with. We were simply asking if the sources for Morris Lewis are reliable. And these sources happen to be newspaper articles!

My point was that journalists who had not been inside 13 Millers Court described it as a house. Journalists, as far as I am aware, are normal people who were alive in 1888 so are very reliable for deducing knowledge about what someone who had never been inside 13 Millers Court would say about someone emerging from that structure.

You mention the police investigation but the police referred to the body being found in a room in a house. Therefore when MJK exited her room she also exited a house. You can never change that simple fact however many times you post the same thing over and over again.

[David Orsam]

That is the other possibility, that they mistook Joe for Dan, or even that Joe was with Mary and some other women, went off to get a drink or attend to nature, Dan stopped and said hello and this was seen with them.

That's fine but did Dan actually stop and say hello?

[David Orsam]

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

That's not changing the question, Pierre, that IS the question because we are talking about someone (Lewis) who reportedly spoke of seeing a woman leaving the interior of a building.

You are the one changing the question by turning it into an issue of whether MJK lived in a room. As I have said many times but you have not even acknowledged, MJK certainly did live in a room. But it was a room in a house.

[David Orsam]

Please don´t mix the sources produced by journalists with the person speaking in the sources.

And there we have the final irony. That's exactly what you are doing Pierre. Mixing a report produced by a journalist from the Press Association with Morris Lewis' actual words which we simply don't know.

[GUT]

That's fine but did Dan actually stop and say hello?

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.

[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 don´t 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

[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]

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]

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.

[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?

[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]

Only if you are a conspiracist.

What if you're a coroner?

[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]

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