Morris Lewis and the reporting of his story

[John G]

Hi John,

I can't help thinking you are unnecessarily complicating matters.

I've dealt with the Horn of Plenty sighting in another post. As for the Britannia sighting, in the LWN report Lewis says that he couldn't say who Kelly was with. I have already said that the fact that only Lewis saw Kelly in the Britannia is a factor to be taken into consideration when assessing his reliability but, for the reasons I have given, I really don't find it "strange". It would only be strange if we had evidence from someone who was in the Britannia that morning who confirmed that they knew Kelly and that they would have seen her if she had been in there.

You can't ignore the fact that Lewis said to a reporter that he saw Kelly in the Britannia that morning and Mrs Maxwell said on oath that she saw her outside the Britannia that morning.

We are certainly not talking about a "major local conspiracy". Why do you say that? There is no conspiracy required here at all.

There might have been a rumour circulated that Kelly was drinking in the Britannia that morning but unless it was published somewhere we wouldn't know about it. Were all rumours in this case published?

What you call "the fundamental problem" (or one of them), being the lack of surviving police reports, isn't actually a problem in respect of the points I am making. It's a problem for our understanding. We simply don't know anything about the police view on Lewis, if they had one.

As for the fact that Lewis didn't appear at the inquest, I have said that is a factor to take into consideration, but we don't know why he didn't appear. Mention of Schwartz is irrelevant in my view but, in that case, the police seem to have believed him (per Swanson's report) yet he still, apparently, wasn't called.

Finally, we are the mercy of newspaper reporters here and it is inevitable that they would have made mistakes. We have to make judgments as best we can about what was said. Sometimes we simply can't sort the wheat from the chaff. I know it's tempting to want to come to definitive conclusions but sometimes we can't do it.

The only thing I can really do is turn the question around: Where is the evidence that Kelly was murdered before 9am? I'm saying there really isn't any.

Hello David

Firstly, if Paul Begg is correct about the Britannia landlady stating that it had been quiet on the morning of the Lewis "sighting", and that she was therefore certain that Kelly hadn't been there, then I think Lewis' evidence is pretty much blown out of the water.

I would say that, as witnesses go, George Hutchinson has to be regarded as more reliable than Lewis, because at least his evidence was properly scrutinized, and we know Abberline believed him, at least initially (not that I'm saying Hutchinson is necessarily a reliable witness.)

In stark contrast, all we have from Lewis is a series of conflicting press reports, which suggests to me that he may have been inventing the story as he went along.

Regarding the Britannia sightings. Maxwell claimed to have seen Kelly outside the pub as 9:00am, whereas in one of Lewis' accounts he sees her inside the pub after 10:00am. Therefore the accounts don't really correspond at all. However, of even greatest importance is the fact that Lewis is reported as having gone to the Britannia, where he allegedly saw Kelly, after playing a game of pitch and toss. However, in an earlier version, he refers to the game but doesn't mention going to the pub. It's therefore possible that his Britannia story was thrown into the mix after he became aware of other accounts, i.e. Maxwell's.

I am fortified in this conclusion by the reference he also makes to seeing Kelly return with some milk. Now, of course, Maxwell also mentions going to the milk shop, so I wonder if he has once again incorporated elements of Maxwell's statement into his own account, but got the facts confused, i.e. because he was relying on rumours of what Maxwell was supposed to have said.

The reason I refer to a "conspiracy" is that both Maxwell and Lewis mention seeing Kelly long after she was presumed to be dead. Moreover, in versions of Lewis' accounts it is at least intimated that he saw her with Barnett which, if true, would surely elevate him to the status of main suspect. Therefore, I consider it virtually inconceivable that no other witness would have reported these later sightings-Particularly as Lewis Mentions seeing her with other people- unless they were part of a cover up, probably involving Barnett.

Finally, is there any evidence that Kelly was killed before 9:00am? No, there isn't. In fact, I will go further, considering that Barnett claimed to have identified the victim from her eyes and ears, I would have to agree with Packers that it is doubtful she was even effectively identified.

[David Orsam]

Begg, P, Jack the Ripper: The Facts, 2004, p286.

But where does he get it from?

[David Orsam]

Hi Abby,

Here are my responses:

However, I still find it hard to Beleive there was enough time for Mary to pick up her killer at the bar walk back to her room (restart the fire? Burn clothes,Have it burn back down) be killed and mutilated and the killer to have escape without being seen by the time her body was discovered. Not sure if all this is physically even possible.

If Kelly met her killer shortly after 9am then I personally can't see any problem in those things being done in one and a half hours. A few of the things you mention are very quick indeed. Walking back to room from Britannia: 2 minutes? Starting fire: 1 minute? Being killed: 10 seconds? Escape: 1 minute?

After 10am makes it tight but we would, I think, need an expert opinion before ruling it out.

Also, I can't help but think that the doctors and all the police, detectives and abberline, who undoubtedly must have been very experienced in finding blood evidence at crime scenes, would know by experience and intuition from looking at the body and blood, how dry it was, what the stains looked like, that they all instinctively pretty much felt that the murder had happened several hours earlier, ie., in the middle of the night and not that it was very fresh, being just several minutes old. Perhaps this was discussed amongst themselves and just not written down?

I don't think that what you are suggesting is actually possible.

Also, we do have evidence of the murder taking place much earlier in the middle of the night, the corroborated heard screams of murder, heard by two witnesses around four in the morning, one of which said it sounded like that of a young woman and that it was very near.

Interesting that you say "screams". I'll come back to that.

It's tempting to rely on the cry of "murder" for the time of death but Prater said in her statement that she didn't take much notice of it because "I frequently hear such cries from the back of the lodging-house where the windows look into Millers Court". At the inquest she confirmed: "It was nothing uncommon to hear cries of murder so I took no notice".

That being so - her clear evidence - how can we possibly rely on such a thing for the time of death?

There are some odd things about the evidence relating to this anyway.

Prater, living almost above Kelly's room, said in her evidence: "the voice was in a faint voice". According to the Daily Telegraph report she said it was a "suppressed cry".

Sarah Lewis, however, in 2 Millers Court, said, according to the Telegraph: "I heard a female's voice shouting 'Murder' loudly".

Odd, no?

Then what about Prater's statement of 9 November. In that she said:

"I heard screams of murder about two or three times in a female voice".

But at the inquest, when asked if she heard the cry of murder a second time, she said "no" according to the Telegraph.

One single scream. So why did she originally say she had heard two or three screams? What do we make of that?

And then what about Mary Ann Cox who came into her room at 3am and then didn't go to sleep for the rest of the night. She said "I should have heard any cry of murder I heard nothing".

Are you seeing any discrepancies here?

Added to that we have the doctors TOD which any way you look at it is much earlier than a post nine am murder.

But the doctor came to his conclusion based mainly on digestion of food in the stomach about which it was not medically possible for him to produce a reliable estimate of the time of death. Nor on rigor or rigidity for that matter. The police might as well have brought a psychic in for his or her opinion. Such an estimate would have been just as scientifically worthless as the doctor's.

[John G]

Where does this come from out of interest John?

Hi David,

Begg, P, Jack the Ripper: The Facts, 2004, p286.

[John G]

Hi John
Is it not rather odd that every witness is unreliable if they've seen something of importance?

There was something that could have been done at the time but clearly was not done.
Elizabeth Long. Witness. Taken to view a body
Mathew Packer. Witness. Taken to view 2 bodies
All manner of witnesses. Taken to view Catherine Eddowes

Caroline Maxwell. A witness of utmost importance. Taken to the cleaners with Lewis being slated as unreliable for probably the same reason.

It is a reasonable assumption that the body was impossible to view. Leaving Barnett and McCarthy's identification as a sham

Ah yes, the old romancer Matthew Packer, the man who sold rabbits to Jack the Ripper's cousin and who blatantly lied about not being spoken to by the police.

[Elamarna]

Hi Abby
There is a third fairly obvious option. In that Maxwell and Lewis were correct and also the TOD is between 3 and 6 as most suspect it is.
Only leaves one conclusion if you believe both.its a conclusion I came to many years ago

Dear Packers,

yes most will agree on the TOD. (not all as we know).

And as you say, it about do you believe Maxwell and Lewis, you do, others do not.

unfortunately like so much in the case, it is unresolvable unless new evidence comes to light.

regards

Steve

[packers stem]

Hi David
Impressive as usual. After going back and reading through all the info in this thread, especially your first post, several times, I must admit I've had pause to my long held belief that maxwell and especially Maurice Lewis were useless witnesses.

One thing I was not fully aware of was that maxwell and Lewis do corroborate each other on the morning sighting as each do say they saw her at the same bar. So thank you for posting and pointing that out.

However, I still find it hard to Beleive there was enough time for Mary to pick up her killer at the bar walk back to her room (restart the fire? Burn clothes,Have it burn back down) be killed and mutilated and the killer to have escape without being seen by the time her body was discovered. Not sure if all this is physically even possible.

Also, I can't help but think that the doctors and all the police, detectives and abberline, who undoubtedly must have been very experienced in finding blood evidence at crime scenes, would know by experience and intuition from looking at the body and blood, how dry it was, what the stains looked like, that they all instinctively pretty much felt that the murder had happened several hours earlier, ie., in the middle of the night and not that it was very fresh, being just several minutes old. Perhaps this was discussed amongst themselves and just not written down?

Also, we do have evidence of the murder taking place much earlier in the middle of the night, the corroborated heard screams of murder, heard by two witnesses around four in the morning, one of which said it sounded like that of a young woman and that it was very near. Added to that we have the doctors TOD which any way you look at it is much earlier than a post nine am murder.

I also just see too many discrepancies in the morning sightings, which may have been attributed to mistakes by over eager and mistaken reporters, but in my mind were probably also due to to mistaken and or over eager witnesses.

But again, I appreciate your work On these daylight morning witnesses. I need more time to digest it all and perhaps see some more debate on it.

Hi Abby
There is a third fairly obvious option. In that Maxwell and Lewis were correct and also the TOD is between 3 and 6 as most suspect it is.
Only leaves one conclusion if you believe both.its a conclusion I came to many years ago

[Abby Normal]

Hi John,

I can't help thinking you are unnecessarily complicating matters.

I've dealt with the Horn of Plenty sighting in another post. As for the Britannia sighting, in the LWN report Lewis says that he couldn't say who Kelly was with. I have already said that the fact that only Lewis saw Kelly in the Britannia is a factor to be taken into consideration when assessing his reliability but, for the reasons I have given, I really don't find it "strange". It would only be strange if we had evidence from someone who was in the Britannia that morning who confirmed that they knew Kelly and that they would have seen her if she had been in there.

You can't ignore the fact that Lewis said to a reporter that he saw Kelly in the Britannia that morning and Mrs Maxwell said on oath that she saw her outside the Britannia that morning.

We are certainly not talking about a "major local conspiracy". Why do you say that? There is no conspiracy required here at all.

There might have been a rumour circulated that Kelly was drinking in the Britannia that morning but unless it was published somewhere we wouldn't know about it. Were all rumours in this case published?

What you call "the fundamental problem" (or one of them), being the lack of surviving police reports, isn't actually a problem in respect of the points I am making. It's a problem for our understanding. We simply don't know anything about the police view on Lewis, if they had one.

As for the fact that Lewis didn't appear at the inquest, I have said that is a factor to take into consideration, but we don't know why he didn't appear. Mention of Schwartz is irrelevant in my view but, in that case, the police seem to have believed him (per Swanson's report) yet he still, apparently, wasn't called.

Finally, we are the mercy of newspaper reporters here and it is inevitable that they would have made mistakes. We have to make judgments as best we can about what was said. Sometimes we simply can't sort the wheat from the chaff. I know it's tempting to want to come to definitive conclusions but sometimes we can't do it.

The only thing I can really do is turn the question around: Where is the evidence that Kelly was murdered before 9am? I'm saying there really isn't any.

Hi David
Impressive as usual. After going back and reading through all the info in this thread, especially your first post, several times, I must admit I've had pause to my long held belief that maxwell and especially Maurice Lewis were useless witnesses.

One thing I was not fully aware of was that maxwell and Lewis do corroborate each other on the morning sighting as each do say they saw her at the same bar. So thank you for posting and pointing that out.

However, I still find it hard to Beleive there was enough time for Mary to pick up her killer at the bar walk back to her room (restart the fire? Burn clothes,Have it burn back down) be killed and mutilated and the killer to have escape without being seen by the time her body was discovered. Not sure if all this is physically even possible.

Also, I can't help but think that the doctors and all the police, detectives and abberline, who undoubtedly must have been very experienced in finding blood evidence at crime scenes, would know by experience and intuition from looking at the body and blood, how dry it was, what the stains looked like, that they all instinctively pretty much felt that the murder had happened several hours earlier, ie., in the middle of the night and not that it was very fresh, being just several minutes old. Perhaps this was discussed amongst themselves and just not written down?

Also, we do have evidence of the murder taking place much earlier in the middle of the night, the corroborated heard screams of murder, heard by two witnesses around four in the morning, one of which said it sounded like that of a young woman and that it was very near. Added to that we have the doctors TOD which any way you look at it is much earlier than a post nine am murder.

I also just see too many discrepancies in the morning sightings, which may have been attributed to mistakes by over eager and mistaken reporters, but in my mind were probably also due to to mistaken and or over eager witnesses.

But again, I appreciate your work On these daylight morning witnesses. I need more time to digest it all and perhaps see some more debate on it.

[David Orsam]

Very good, David. Do you have a reference to this source?

Yes I do Pierre. Seek and ye shall find.

It's clearly stated in #1. You know, that long post at the start of this thread which you never bothered to read.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;375289]

You can't ignore the fact that Lewis said to a reporter that he saw Kelly in the Britannia that morning

Very good, David. Do you have a reference to this source?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

You are aware that Mary Jane was seen drinking with Daniel Barnett I believe on the Tuesday night of that week?

No, I'm not aware of such a thing, where do you get that idea from?

The fact he used the name Dan brings to mind two questions...did he confuse the brothers, and if so, were they very similar looking...or was he recalling the wrong night that he saw Mary Jane with "Dan".

And what do you make of this from the London Daily News of 10 November 1888:

"The victim has been identified as Mary Jane Kelly, 26 years of age, who lived for some time with a man named Barnet, otherwise Danny."

And this from the Morning Advertiser of the same day:

"Up to a recent date she lived with a man called Barnet, who was known also as Danny, and who worked sometimes at Billingsgate as a porter, and sometimes as a drover, or a hawker of oranges in the streets."

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;375289]

You can't ignore the fact that Lewis said to a reporter that he saw Kelly in the Britannia that morning

Very good, David. Do you have a reference to this source?

Regards, Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

Hi John,

I can't help thinking you are unnecessarily complicating matters.

I've dealt with the Horn of Plenty sighting in another post. As for the Britannia sighting, in the LWN report Lewis says that he couldn't say who Kelly was with. I have already said that the fact that only Lewis saw Kelly in the Britannia is a factor to be taken into consideration when assessing his reliability but, for the reasons I have given, I really don't find it "strange". It would only be strange if we had evidence from someone who was in the Britannia that morning who confirmed that they knew Kelly and that they would have seen her if she had been in there.

You can't ignore the fact that Lewis said to a reporter that he saw Kelly in the Britannia that morning and Mrs Maxwell said on oath that she saw her outside the Britannia that morning.

We are certainly not talking about a "major local conspiracy". Why do you say that? There is no conspiracy required here at all.

There might have been a rumour circulated that Kelly was drinking in the Britannia that morning but unless it was published somewhere we wouldn't know about it. Were all rumours in this case published?

What you call "the fundamental problem" (or one of them), being the lack of surviving police reports, isn't actually a problem in respect of the points I am making. It's a problem for our understanding. We simply don't know anything about the police view on Lewis, if they had one.

As for the fact that Lewis didn't appear at the inquest, I have said that is a factor to take into consideration, but we don't know why he didn't appear. Mention of Schwartz is irrelevant in my view but, in that case, the police seem to have believed him (per Swanson's report) yet he still, apparently, wasn't called.

Finally, we are the mercy of newspaper reporters here and it is inevitable that they would have made mistakes. We have to make judgments as best we can about what was said. Sometimes we simply can't sort the wheat from the chaff. I know it's tempting to want to come to definitive conclusions but sometimes we can't do it.

The only thing I can really do is turn the question around: Where is the evidence that Kelly was murdered before 9am? I'm saying there really isn't any.

None but the belief of all investigative contemporary sources, excluding of course the lay people who claimed to know someone the evidence doesnt show us that they knew at all, the ones who saw a dead woman walking, Morris and Carrie.

[Michael W Richards]

Well let's just look at Mary Jane's movements on the Thursday evening.

If we believe newspaper reports, she went to the Ten Bells with Elizabeth Foster and left at just after 7pm. For the purposes of this post, it doesn't matter if this is true or not.

Then she must have gone back to 13 Milllers Court where Joe Barnett called on her between 7.30pm and 7.45pm (at which point Maria Harvey departed). He stayed 15 minutes and thus left by 8pm. Crucially, he told the coroner: "She was quite sober".

The next confirmed sighting was 11:45pm by Mary Ann Cox who says that Mary was "very much intoxicated" when she saw her.

So where was Mary Jane between 8pm and 11:45pm? John, what's the answer? She was obviously drinking. But you must find it "strange" that there is not a single bit of evidence to tell us where she was drinking or who she was drinking with, right?

Who is the only person who gives us an answer? Morris Lewis! He says she was drinking in the Horn of Plenty with a man and a woman. The man he identified as "Dan" the paramour. Maybe he was wrong and it was another man but, hey, he knew the pair had separated so it was a pretty lucky guess that he's placed Mary Jane in a public house (where she must have been) with a man who had separated from her over a week ago but who visited her at her home that evening.

On his own account, when Joe left Mary Jane they were alone. Could he have gone with her to the pub? She got drunk and they had a row? Would Barnett have wanted to admit that to the police? I don’t know but even John must admit there is a huge evidential gap as to what Mary Jane was doing in the evening before she was murdered and more importantly who she was with.

No-one came forward to the police but then how many residents of Dorset Street in 1888 liked to talk to the police?

You are aware that Mary Jane was seen drinking with Daniel Barnett I believe on the Tuesday night of that week? The fact he used the name Dan brings to mind two questions...did he confuse the brothers, and if so, were they very similar looking...or was he recalling the wrong night that he saw Mary Jane with "Dan".

[David Orsam]

Hello David,

Okay, you make a fair point about the barman. However, Lewis refers to Kelly talking to a number of people, both in the Horn of Plenty on the Thursday night, and in the Britannia on the morning of the murder. And, of course, in some accounts he clearly intimates that one of those individuals was Joseph Barnett.

And don't you find it strange that Lewis seems to be the sole source for these sightings? In other words, he notices Kelly in two different pubs, on separate days, but no one else seems to recognize her at all in those venues?

Anyway, at the very least, if you're correct we must surely be taking about a major local conspiracy, probably involving Joseph Barnett, and such a conspiracy didn't exactly work out too well in the Austin case. Moreover, I find it hard to believe that over the following days, weeks, months, years there wouldn't have been at least a rumour, lending support to Lewis' various accounts, and possibly circulated by one of the people she was supposedly drinking with.

And let's return to the fundamental problem. Not only did Lewis not give evidence at the inquest, there are no surviving police reports either. All we have are a series of pretty inconsistent press reports, in the course of which Lewis' account is frankly all over the place: bits added here, taken away there, as if on a whim. I mean, anyone would think that he was making it up as he went along, or developing his story as he discovered more of what other witnesses had said!

Of course, you might argue that it is the reporters who are at fault for this mess, but in that case how are we supposed to sort the wheat from the chaff?

And what happened in the Schwartz case should surely be a warning that extreme caution is required when we only have press reports to depend on, at least to the extent that it highlights the issue of unreliable journalists, or unreliable witnesses, or both. I mean, the Star's version of Schwartz's account is radically different from the official report. For instance, in the Star Pipeman is transformed from an innocent bystander, minding his own business and quietly enjoying a smoke, into a knife-wielding accomplice of BS man who rushes Schwartz with the knife!

And what might the lack of police reports on Lewis imply? Could it be that he admitted to inventing his story, or blamed things on an overexuberant press corps, after being interviewed, or re-interviewed by the police-as he surely must have been, such as in the Packer case-but the authorities decided to take no action, and effectively sweep things under the carpet, for fear of deterring other witnesses from coming forward?

Hi John,

I can't help thinking you are unnecessarily complicating matters.

I've dealt with the Horn of Plenty sighting in another post. As for the Britannia sighting, in the LWN report Lewis says that he couldn't say who Kelly was with. I have already said that the fact that only Lewis saw Kelly in the Britannia is a factor to be taken into consideration when assessing his reliability but, for the reasons I have given, I really don't find it "strange". It would only be strange if we had evidence from someone who was in the Britannia that morning who confirmed that they knew Kelly and that they would have seen her if she had been in there.

You can't ignore the fact that Lewis said to a reporter that he saw Kelly in the Britannia that morning and Mrs Maxwell said on oath that she saw her outside the Britannia that morning.

We are certainly not talking about a "major local conspiracy". Why do you say that? There is no conspiracy required here at all.

There might have been a rumour circulated that Kelly was drinking in the Britannia that morning but unless it was published somewhere we wouldn't know about it. Were all rumours in this case published?

What you call "the fundamental problem" (or one of them), being the lack of surviving police reports, isn't actually a problem in respect of the points I am making. It's a problem for our understanding. We simply don't know anything about the police view on Lewis, if they had one.

As for the fact that Lewis didn't appear at the inquest, I have said that is a factor to take into consideration, but we don't know why he didn't appear. Mention of Schwartz is irrelevant in my view but, in that case, the police seem to have believed him (per Swanson's report) yet he still, apparently, wasn't called.

Finally, we are the mercy of newspaper reporters here and it is inevitable that they would have made mistakes. We have to make judgments as best we can about what was said. Sometimes we simply can't sort the wheat from the chaff. I know it's tempting to want to come to definitive conclusions but sometimes we can't do it.

The only thing I can really do is turn the question around: Where is the evidence that Kelly was murdered before 9am? I'm saying there really isn't any.