Morris Lewis and the reporting of his story

[Fleetwood Mac]

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

Hi Packers,

Yes, I do. I think the doctor was closer to the mark.

And, in the final analysis I agree. A hunch doesn't render a statement unreliable.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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,

I personally see JTR as very much an opportunist who didn't plan a great deal and certainly wasn't some criminal mastermind. He was fortunate in my opinion in so much as he didn't get caught red-handed.

But, I think he went out hunting when it was dark for obvious reasons, and the other murders support this view.

If you mean he may have been in the pub at 9 in the morning with no more than having a beer in mind, and fortune called and he took advantage; I doubt it.

My hunch is that Kelly was dead long before the sun rose, just as the other victims were.

[John G]

I've offered a suggestion about Paul Begg's source in the new thread, "Morris Lewis Revisited". Curiously, in his 2003 book, 'Jack the Ripper: The Definitive History', Begg makes no mention of a denial by anyone at the Britannia that they had seen Kelly. Instead he only makes the point (p.241) that there is "no corroboration from the Britannia or any local pub that Kelly was served or seen that morning". However, he adds that, "this assumes that somebody, journalist or policeman, sought corroboration; and that Kelly would have been remembered amid what may have been a brisk early morning trade with market staff finishing the night shift."

Thanks David. Paul Begg certainly seems to have contradicted, by implication, his earlier statement in the latter book.

Thanks for mentioning the new thread. I hadn't noticed it, but will read it with interest.

[packers stem]

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

Hi John
For this theorists use an eyewitness who certainly did not know the person she thought she saw

[packers stem]

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.

Hi John
For our purposes of just discussing whether Kelly was still alive much later than was previously believed then we don't require exact timings .The Maxwell timings are between those of lewis and if she was alive and chatting away at 10 then she was ,of course, alive between 8 and 9 .It therefore is corroboration .

[David Orsam]

The fact that nobody noticed her in the Britannia is also problematic for me, particularly if Paul Begg happens to be correct-it's slightly worrying that he doesn't cite a reference, though!

I've offered a suggestion about Paul Begg's source in the new thread, "Morris Lewis Revisited". Curiously, in his 2003 book, 'Jack the Ripper: The Definitive History', Begg makes no mention of a denial by anyone at the Britannia that they had seen Kelly. Instead he only makes the point (p.241) that there is "no corroboration from the Britannia or any local pub that Kelly was served or seen that morning". However, he adds that, "this assumes that somebody, journalist or policeman, sought corroboration; and that Kelly would have been remembered amid what may have been a brisk early morning trade with market staff finishing the night shift."

[John G]

Okay, so you believe Maxwell to be unreliable because she claimed to be on first name terms with Kelly?

I mean, there's no right or wrong answer, I'm just interested to know bearing in mind your views on the medical evidence.

Hello David,

That's one reason. I would also refer to the timings of the alleged sightings, i e. in broad daylight at a time when, presumably, there would have been lots of people milling about, raising the question as to why she wasn't noticed by other local witnesses. The fact that nobody noticed her in the Britannia is also problematic for me, particularly if Paul Begg happens to be correct-it's slightly worrying that he doesn't cite a reference, though!

Nonetheless, in the early hours of the morning I wouldn't have expected the pub to be busy, particularly as most people would presumably be at work, so the chancers of Kelly being noticed, at least by the landlady/bar staff, are greatly increased.

That said, I'm certainly less certain than I was and you've clearly raised some important points. And Maxwell is certainly a far more credible witness than Lewis. As Walter Dew noted:

"If Maxwell had been an attention seeker-one of those women who live for the limelight-it would have been easy to discredit her story. She was not. She seemed a sane and sensible woman, and her reputation was excellent...In one way at least her version fitted in with the facts as known. We know that Marie had been drinking the previous night, and, as this was not a habit of hers, illness the next morning was just what might have been expected." (Dew, 1938, as cited in Begg, 2004)

I've also mentioned previously how densely populated the local area was. Therefore, it would presumably have been possible for Kelly to have remained unnoticed amongst the general throng of people, particularly at that time in the morning.

[David Orsam]

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.

Okay, so you believe Maxwell to be unreliable because she claimed to be on first name terms with Kelly?

I mean, there's no right or wrong answer, I'm just interested to know bearing in mind your views on the medical evidence.

[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