Morris Lewis and the reporting of his story

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,

I'm more concerned with why you've ignored all my posts addressed to you and have responded to one of my posts to John.

I take that as a "no".

If the witnesses were questioned together, they would have heard what Mrs Maxwell said.

Regards, Pierre

[GUT]

This is obviously a point to take into consideration but let me tell you something about the murder of Emily Dimmock in 1907.

A burnt letter was found in her fireplace suggesting she had met someone at the Eagle public house in Camden Town on the night of her death. Despite speaking to the barmaid, who was shown a photograph of Dimmock, the police were unable to find anyone who saw Dimmock in the Eagle that night.

Dimmock WAS however in the Eagle that night and she did have a drink with Robert Wood and a friend of Wood's who was there by chance. It was only after the arrest of Wood, about two weeks after the murder, that the police could confirm this and the barmaid was able to identify Wood and she also suddenly remembered seeing Emily.

If I had been in a pub drinking last night (which I wasn't) and someone who had also been in there at the same time had been found murdered today (which they weren't) I doubt I would be able to confirm that they had been there.

But David, at 10:00 am I think they may recognize you.

[packers stem]

Hi John

Hello Packers,

Well, I think I might just have discovered who your prime suspect is!

Really ? Does it matter to this thread?

However, as I noted, Schwartz was initially taken extremely seriously by a number of senior figures.

Why was he absent from the inquest?? As I've mentioned before he would be unreliable in many eyes had it not been for the home office files .

In stark contrast, there is no evidence that Lewis was taken remotely seriously by anyone-and I think it inconceivable that there wouldn't have been surviving official reports, referring to Lewis, if that were not the case.

If that single Schwartz report had vanished???
Is it also inconceivable that there were no Mary Kelly mortuary photos or was it OK for them to disappear but not a report on Lewis?

And, at the very least, a few press statements are clearly insufficient to determine the credibility of witness who's evidence was not tested at an inquest, and I think it's a fair assumption that any police interview didn't go to well for him, otherwise there would surely be surviving reports and he may well have ended up as the prime witness, instead of rapidly disappearing into obscurity!

But John ,it's not his fault that he wasn't called to the inquest and it's not necessarily a fair assumption that the interview wouldn't have gone well .Like with Schwartz ,we can not know the reasons behind the thinking of not calling him .

[David Orsam]

If the witnesses were questioned together, they would have heard what Mrs Maxwell said.

Do you have a source showing that the witnesses were questioned together?

And do you have a source showing that the witnesses (and Mrs Maxwell in particular) were questioned at all by the police before 3pm on 9 November? Or even before 4:30pm?

[David Orsam]

But David, at 10:00 am I think they may recognize you.

Why do you say that?

[packers stem]

That's the biggest problem, surely if she'd been in th pub, any dan pub for that matter, surely at least one other person would have come forward, like a barman.

We know she was in the pub the night before so where are those witnesses ??

[Pierre]

Do you have a source showing that the witnesses were questioned together?

And do you have a source showing that the witnesses (and Mrs Maxwell in particular) were questioned at all by the police before 3pm on 9 November? Or even before 4:30pm?

Hi David,

No, that´s why I asked you if you knew anything about it.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

No, that´s why I asked you if you knew anything about it.

Strange then that in the absence of any factual information supplied by me you decided to speculate about what the witnesses would have heard had they been questioned together, for which there is no evidence.

[John G]

Hi John



Really ? Does it matter to this thread?



Why was he absent from the inquest?? As I've mentioned before he would be unreliable in many eyes had it not been for the home office files .



If that single Schwartz report had vanished???
Is it also inconceivable that there were no Mary Kelly mortuary photos or was it OK for them to disappear but not a report on Lewis?



But John ,it's not his fault that he wasn't called to the inquest and it's not necessarily a fair assumption that the interview wouldn't have gone well .Like with Schwartz ,we can not know the reasons behind the thinking of not calling him .

Hello Packers,

There be fair I actually regard Barnett as a credible suspect myself.

Regarding Schwartz, I believe there were at least five reports that referred to his evidence:

HO 144/221A49301C, fols 148-59. Report to the Home Office by Chief Inspector Swanson, 19th October 1888.

HO 144/221/A49391C. A Home Office minute in which an explanation of the word Lipski was asked for.

MEPO 3/140231A49301C, fols.204-6. Report by Inspector Abberline, dated 1 November 1888

MEPO 3/140/22/ A 49301C, fols 207. Draft letter from Robert Anderson to Sir Charles Warren, dated 5 November 1888

HO 144/221/A49401C, fol. 199. Repeat of the above by Charles Warren in a letter to the Home Office, dated 6 November 1888.

I therefore think it a reasonable assumption that Lewis was not taken seriously as a witness, i.e. because his evidence had been undermined in some significant way. However, I agree that it is unfortunate that we have no official confirmation of this. Nonetheless, that still means that all we have to go on is a number of inconsistent press reports.

And, as I noted in my reply to David, if Lewis and Maxwell were correct, there must surely have been a significant number of people, such as Britannia pub-goers, who must have deduced that the wrong person was die as the victim, and who may have been aware of Kelly's dramatic escape from Whitechapel. The fact that none of these supposed witnesses came forward, or that not so much as a single rumour was circulated is, in my opinion, virtually inconceivable. After all, given the publicity the case attracted, whoever did come forward would probably have been able to dine out on his story for years!

[David Orsam]

And, as I noted in my reply to David, if Lewis and Maxwell were correct, there must surely have been a significant number of people, such as Britannia pub-goers, who must have deduced that the wrong person was die as the victim, and who may have been aware of Kelly's dramatic escape from Whitechapel.

Hold on. Lewis and Maxwell said they saw her at 9-10am, not 11am. Could she not have been murdered after the sightings?

[Elamarna]

Hold on. Lewis and Maxwell said they saw her at 9-10am, not 11am. Could she not have been murdered after the sightings?

David

As I said to Packers Stem yesterday, if there is a sighting before say at around 9.30, it is doable in my opinion.,

If we go to 10am or slightly later it makes the window very tight, she needs to go back to #13, either with her killer, or he joins her there, he butchers her and gets out unseen before Bowyer arrives at 10.45.

I asked Packers if he considered such a timetable plausible, he did not.
While I accept it is not impossible, not knowing how long that level of butchery took, it is certainly very difficult to fit in.

Steve

[David Orsam]

I asked Packers if he considered such a timetable plausible, he did not.

With all respect to Packers it doesn't really matter what he thinks is a plausible timetable. Unless I've missed something, there isn't any evidence as to how long the murder and mutilations would have taken, is there?

For all I know it could all have been done in 15 minutes. But I just don't know and don't seem to have any actual evidence to guide me.

Perhaps there is a sensible modern estimate by a pathologist. Do you know of one Steve?

[Elamarna]

With all respect to Packers it doesn't really matter what he thinks is a plausible timetable. Unless I've missed something, there isn't any evidence as to how long the murder and mutilations would have taken, is there?

For all I know it could all have been done in 15 minutes. But I just don't know and don't seem to have any actual evidence to guide me.

Perhaps there is a sensible modern estimate by a pathologist. Do you know of one Steve?

David
No I don't, the only time scale I have ever seen was from MACNAGHTEN who suggested about 90mins I think.
He was not a doctor, so don't think we can take that, as any sort of judgement. I did say we don't know how long it would have taken.

I was responding to your question, could she not have been killed after a sighting, I suggest certainly possible at 9.30, probably still just about so at close to 10am. if any later I suggest it becomes harder to fit it in.
However it is something we cannot be conclusive about, it will be guess work.

You may not agree David, and I have no problem with that.

all the best

steve

[packers stem]

Hello Packers,

There be fair I actually regard Barnett as a credible suspect myself.

Regarding Schwartz, I believe there were at least five reports that referred to his evidence:

HO 144/221A49301C, fols 148-59. Report to the Home Office by Chief Inspector Swanson, 19th October 1888.

HO 144/221/A49391C. A Home Office minute in which an explanation of the word Lipski was asked for.

MEPO 3/140231A49301C, fols.204-6. Report by Inspector Abberline, dated 1 November 1888

MEPO 3/140/22/ A 49301C, fols 207. Draft letter from Robert Anderson to Sir Charles Warren, dated 5 November 1888

HO 144/221/A49401C, fol. 199. Repeat of the above by Charles Warren in a letter to the Home Office, dated 6 November 1888.

I therefore think it a reasonable assumption that Lewis was not taken seriously as a witness, i.e. because his evidence had been undermined in some significant way. However, I agree that it is unfortunate that we have no official confirmation of this. Nonetheless, that still means that all we have to go on is a number of inconsistent press reports.

And, as I noted in my reply to David, if Lewis and Maxwell were correct, there must surely have been a significant number of people, such as Britannia pub-goers, who must have deduced that the wrong person was die as the victim, and who may have been aware of Kelly's dramatic escape from Whitechapel. The fact that none of these supposed witnesses came forward, or that not so much as a single rumour was circulated is, in my opinion, virtually inconceivable. After all, given the publicity the case attracted, whoever did come forward would probably have been able to dine out on his story for years!

Hi John
I will have to concede to you that Schwartz was mentioned in a few files other than the Swanson report but the inexplicable decision to not call him to the inquest can never be satisfactorily explained
In defense also I would say there are very few files remaining from the Kelly murder to make the judgement that Lewis was not interviewed .
In fact it would seem bizarre for him not to have been interviewed considering his press statements,same goes for mrs kennedy.It is still more likely than not that an interview report has disappeared rather than never taken in the first place .
As for the pub goers I've given my opinion on that a number of times.If a large number of them came forward from the previous night then you may have a point but they didn't.Non appearing witnesses is not a reason to dismiss 3 witnesses .

As for Barnett ....no ,not for me although he would be aware of events by the morning of the 9th I'm sure and may have deliberately misidentified

[David Orsam]

You may not agree David, and I have no problem with that.

With all respect to myself it doesn't matter whether I agree or not!

It's just a question of the laws of physics. If Kelly could have been taken from Ringer's to her house, sorry I mean her room, stripped, murdered and mutilated inside 45 minutes then Lewis could have seen her just after 10am. It would simply mean that she was murdered between that time and the discovery by Bowyer. It doesn't matter if it's a tight squeeze. If it was possible then it could have happened.

If it was impossible and Macnaghten was right about 90 minutes then Lewis couldn't have seen Kelly alive at that time.