Morris Lewis and the reporting of his story

[Elamarna]

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

Yes I know exactly what you are thinking.
almost certainly would have gone for further ID, setting TOD after 10 would never be accepted.

However and we are back to a day ago, we do not know for sure that a very firm ID did not take place.

if however he did have a firm id, that could not be disputed, and they still stayed with their stories, what then?

steve

[John G]

I think it's perfectly possible that Lewis heard of Maxwell's account, possibly he was even there when she spoke to the reporter, and then fabricated a story based on her evidence.

This would explain why his "evidence" keeps changing/evolving in various newspaper accounts, which as David rightly points out, "calls into question his credibility and reliability."

It would also explain why he wasn't called as witness: I think it's inconceivable that the police didn't speak to him and, therefore, he possibly admitted that he'd made the whole thing up.

[Pierre]

I think it's perfectly possible that Lewis heard of Maxwell's account, possibly he was even there when she spoke to the reporter, and then fabricated a story based on her evidence.

This would explain why his "evidence" keeps changing/evolving in various newspaper accounts, which as David rightly points out, "calls into question his credibility and reliability."

It would also explain why he wasn't called as witness: I think it's inconceivable that the police didn't speak to him and, therefore, he possibly admitted that he'd made the whole thing up.

[B]
Morris Lewis didn´t have to make anything up. There is not one source where Morris Lewis said that he saw Kelly coming out of or going into her room.

There are only newspaper articles giving a small range of different wordings, which means they are not reliable.

And the validity is equally low: There are statements of a "house". Which house? Where?

There are statements of a "woman" What woman? Who?

One journalist is interpreting "woman" as "deceased". One of many others, who say "woman".

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

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

Yes. And why light a big fire in the morning to see what he was doing? Sunrise started 07.07.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

Yes. And why light a big fire in the morning to see what he was doing? Sunrise started 07.07.

Pierre

Yes Pierre, I agree, the murder almost certainly took place before 7am, I won't say it did categorically has we do not have the evidence to confirm that.

Equally, it cannot be proved that a large fire was lit to provide light for the killer, that is just one possibility, even if it is one of the stronger ones.

Your point is never the less a very valid question.

steve

[David Orsam]

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,

What I will say is that I have always thought that coroner was unfair to Mrs Maxwell to tell her that her evidence was "different to other people's". I don't see how it contradicted any other evidence actually. Dr Phillips doesn't seem to have estimated a time of death in his testimony. Perhaps he did in writing but we now know that he couldn't possibly have done so with any degree of accuracy or certainty. As for other evidence, well perhaps the coroner had the cry of "murder" in mind as fixing the time of death but that's not very solid.

To answer your question directly: If Lewis had given evidence that he saw Kelly alive at 10am and if his evidence appeared to be given truthfully and if he gave a satisfactory account of how he knew what the time was and if the coroner was satisfied that the murder/mutilations could have been carried out within 40 minutes and if the coroner was not being told in writing by Dr Phillips that the murder was definitely carried out in the middle of the night, then under those conditions he might well have concluded that death must have occurred between 10am and 10:45am.

[David Orsam]

I think it's perfectly possible that Lewis heard of Maxwell's account, possibly he was even there when she spoke to the reporter, and then fabricated a story based on her evidence.

I don't think that's the answer though John. I'll tell you why.

We can be certain that Mrs Maxwell spoke to a Central News reporter on 10 November. Her account was first published in the evening papers on 10 November (e.g. Pall Mall Gazette) sourced to the Central News.

Lewis, however, appears to have spoken to a Lloyds Weekly News reporter because his 'statement' only appeared in LWN that weekend, being first published on 11 November (and repeated in Illustrated Police News of 17 November). For that reason alone it strikes me as rather unlikely that Lewis was present when Maxwell spoke to the Central News reporter.

More important, however, is the fact that on 9 November, long before Mrs Maxwell spoke to the Central News, the Press Association was carrying a report that Kelly had been seen drinking (albeit with Barnett) after 10am that morning. The Globe of the same afternoon said that Kelly was drinking for half an hour that morning in a small public house. In other words, the story that Kelly was out drinking on the morning of Friday 9 November preceded Maxwell's account.

Either Lewis was the source for this story – in which case there are some inconsistencies with what he told the LWN reporter – or another unidentified individual was the source. If the latter then it's possible that Lewis overheard THIS story or read about it in the evening papers and changed his account as a result, but then we are left wondering who the third person was who claimed to have seen Kelly drinking that morning.

[David Orsam]

[B]
Morris Lewis didn´t have to make anything up. There is not one source where Morris Lewis said that he saw Kelly coming out of or going into her room.

As usual, Pierre, you are hopelessly confused. John was talking about a totally different report. Not the one you keep yapping on about. You'd know this if you had bothered to read the first post in this thread.

[David Orsam]

There are only newspaper articles giving a small range of different wordings, which means they are not reliable.

And the validity is equally low: There are statements of a "house". Which house? Where?

As I stated clearly in my OP, the answer is in the third Press Association report which said that the victim was:

"a young woman who occupied a room in a house in Dorset-court".

So the house in that sentence, which I have highlighted in bold for you because you seem to have difficulties seeing it in the OP, was the house being referred by the same reporter later in the same report.

[David Orsam]

There are statements of a "woman" What woman? Who?

The answer is obviously the woman who was believed to have been murdered.

[David Orsam]

One journalist is interpreting "woman" as "deceased". One of many others, who say "woman".

Had you bothered to read my OP, Pierre, you will have seen that the Morris Lewis story was a Press Association report which was circulated to newspapers around the country. So it is not a case of "many" journalists interpreting Lewis' words but one agency circulating a story and probably correcting it and improving it during the afternoon.

[David Orsam]

Yes. And why light a big fire in the morning to see what he was doing? Sunrise started 07.07.

How do you know for sure that the killer lit the fire "to see what he was doing?"

[Edward]

House vs. Room

Hello All

At risk of opening an old wound, I’d like to offer my thoughts on the house vs. room dust up. (sorry, but I only just now discovered this thread)

I feel that people who were familiar with number 13, Miller’s Court would refer to number 13 as a room. In other words, people who lived in the court or who had visited number 13 would know what was behind that door: a partitioned off single room. The police reports refer to number 13 as a room because the police had been inside number 13.

Number 26 Dorset Street was a house. Anyone not familiar with number 13 merely saw a door into this house. Those people would refer to number 13 as a house.

Police reports refer to number 13 as a room, because the police knew what was behind the door of number 13.

Yet another thread evolving into a hair pulling contest … what a pity.

Edward

[John G]

I don't think that's the answer though John. I'll tell you why.

We can be certain that Mrs Maxwell spoke to a Central News reporter on 10 November. Her account was first published in the evening papers on 10 November (e.g. Pall Mall Gazette) sourced to the Central News.

Lewis, however, appears to have spoken to a Lloyds Weekly News reporter because his 'statement' only appeared in LWN that weekend, being first published on 11 November (and repeated in Illustrated Police News of 17 November). For that reason alone it strikes me as rather unlikely that Lewis was present when Maxwell spoke to the Central News reporter.

More important, however, is the fact that on 9 November, long before Mrs Maxwell spoke to the Central News, the Press Association was carrying a report that Kelly had been seen drinking (albeit with Barnett) after 10am that morning. The Globe of the same afternoon said that Kelly was drinking for half an hour that morning in a small public house. In other words, the story that Kelly was out drinking on the morning of Friday 9 November preceded Maxwell's account.

Either Lewis was the source for this story – in which case there are some inconsistencies with what he told the LWN reporter – or another unidentified individual was the source. If the latter then it's possible that Lewis overheard THIS story or read about it in the evening papers and changed his account as a result, but then we are left wondering who the third person was who claimed to have seen Kelly drinking that morning.

Hello David,

Thanks for the reply, you clearly raise some very interesting points. However, the main substantive reason I have for seriously doubting his account is the lack of any police report referring to his evidence, coupled with the fact that he didn't attend the inquest; and, of course, Maxwell did attend the inquest, despite the fact that the authorities must have had concerns about the reliability of her testimony.

Thus, I consider it highly unlikely that he would not have been interviewed by the police, i.e. on 9 November. However, even if I'm wrong it is surely inconceivable that he would not have been spoken to following the subsequent newspaper reports, where it is reported that he saw Kelly significantly later than any other witness.

In fact, there is a clear precedent, and that's Matthew Packer- following his claim that he had not been interviewed by the police, despite the fact that he had seen Stride with a suspect; it transpired that he had been spoken to by Sergeant White, who recorded that he'd seen nothing suspicious. Nonetheless, following a critical newspaper on 4th October, in the Evening News, Sergeant White was instructed to make further enquiries, and he spoke to Packer again at the mortuary, where he was in the company of Grand and Batchelor.

Therefore, the lack of any police report in Lewis' case, and his non-appearance at the inquest, might be explained by Lewis withdrawing his evidence, or claiming that he'd been seriously misquoted (the police deciding not to take matters any further for fear of deterring other witnesses.) In any event, the police obviously determined that there was no reason to take his testimony seriously; and the fact that he wasn't invited to attend the inquest, or his evidence considered worthy of an official report, strongly suggests to me that something must have occurred to seriously undermine his credibility.

Maxwell is more difficult to dismiss. However, her admission that she had only briefly spoken to Kelly, or the woman she believed to be Kelly, twice in four months-and one of those occasions was from "across the street" - makes it seem likely to me that she confused Kelly with someone else (perhaps she subsequently had doubts herself, but was unwilling to admit to this for fear of appearing foolish, as well as risking consequential damage to her reputation, or even fearing that she might be prosecuted by the authorities.) And, of course, in a four month period she may well have had casual conversations with dozens, if not hundreds of people, considering how densely overcrowded the locality was: in fact, I believe Annie Chapman only lived 200 yards away so, at a stretch, even she might be regarded as a neighbour! And then there's the fact that many locals lead itinerant lifestyles, so presumably there would be residents coming and going all the time. Moreover, there would be people visiting friends or family, or just staying in the neighbourhood briefly, i.e. as a temporary guest of a resident.

And two brief conversations over a four month period implies, at the very least, that Kelly, or the woman she believed to be Kelly, wasn't someone she had much close contact with!

However, she's clearly a far more reliable witness than Lewis, and the fact that modern forensic science indicates that time of death cannot be reliably ascertained, means that her evidence cannot be entirely written off.

[David Orsam]

Hello David,

Thanks for the reply, you clearly raise some very interesting points. However, the main substantive reason I have for seriously doubting his account is the lack of any police report referring to his evidence, coupled with the fact that he didn't attend the inquest;

I would say: yes and no. It looks like we are missing virtually all the police reports relating to the Kelly murder so there's nothing inherently odd about the lack of any mention of Lewis in the surviving reports. But certainly his absence from the inquest raises questions about whether he was regarded as a witness of truth.

There are so many gaps in our knowledge that it's hard to come to a definitive conclusion.