Morris Lewis and the reporting of his story

[packers stem]

Hi David

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

Unless the body was misidentified

[Elamarna]

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.

Dear David,

Your Answer above sums up the position I was trying to make, obviously far better than my attempt, which was i accept not as clear as it should have been.

The question you are asked:

"Could she not have been murdered after the sightings?"

is one, to which it may not therefore be possible to give a conclusive answer.

all the best

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;375084]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?

There is always some "evidence". The problem is that "evidence" must be discussed in relation to validity and reliability. If you are not able to do this, there is just one solution: Pretending the evidence is no evidence.

But the past and its sources are not presenting themselves as 0/1, i.e. evidence/no evidence. You will have to discuss the problems of the evidence. That is the key to the past.

For all I know it could all have been done in 15 minutes

So then you claim to know something. What is that "something" on which you base the hypothesis that it could have been done in "15 minutes"?

But I just don't know and don't seem to have any actual evidence to guide me.

So try and use the evidence and get som knowledge. If we don´t try, we will get nowhere with this case.

Perhaps there is a sensible modern estimate by a pathologist.

Do you know of one Steve?

And if we don´t know of one, why not write to someone and ask? Send them the MJK pics and ask them how long time they would estimate for such extensive mutilations. Yes, why no send the question to 50 pathologists, them we will have a range of time ranges.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

There is always some "evidence". The problem is that "evidence" must be discussed in relation to validity and reliability. If you are not able to do this, there is just one solution: Pretending the evidence is no evidence.

But the past and its sources are not presenting themselves as 0/1, i.e. evidence/no evidence. You will have to discuss the problems of the evidence. That is the key to the past.

Once again Pierre, you intervene in a discussion I am having with another forum member which you have failed to understand. It is untrue and nonsense to say that there is "always some evidence". Don't be silly. I suppose I could ask you for your source for this but it's not even worth bothering because it's such a self-evidently false statement.

So then you claim to know something. What is that "something" on which you base the hypothesis that it could have been done in "15 minutes"?

Being kind, it may be that you are not a native English speaker and the subtleties of the English language escape you but my statement "For all I know it could all have been done in 15 minutes" is in no way a hypothesis that the murder could have been committed in 15 minutes. I don't, however, have time to waste giving you English lessons so you will have to figure it out by yourself.

And if we don´t know of one, why not write to someone and ask? Send them the MJK pics and ask them how long time they would estimate for such extensive mutilations. Yes, why no send the question to 50 pathologists, them we will have a range of time ranges.

It would be a complete waste of time sending someone the poor quality MJK pics without, at the very least, a copy of Dr Bond's report and even then an expert might not feel able to express an opinion as to how long the process would have taken. In any event, as any opinion given would not be on oath and recorded in a primary source I feel sure it would fail to satisfy you so it doesn't seem worth it but if you want to go ahead and do it, good luck.

[David Orsam]

The question you are asked:

"Could she not have been murdered after the sightings?"

is one, to which it may not therefore be possible to give a conclusive answer.

Yes, on a literal interpretation of the "evidence" as to the sightings that is a fair comment but if we start with the premise that Lewis was a witness of truth then I would say that the likelihood is that when he spoke to the LWN reporter one or both of them was confused about the timing and that his sighting actually occurred at 9am. In the P.A. report, a time of 9am was given for his pitch & toss game and, while that game could have lasted an hour, at which point a policeman was spotted, I would suggest it was the time it ended. Perhaps he confused himself the next day into thinking it was 10am but 9am, especially when matched with Mrs M's evidence, would make much more sense.

I repeat that this is premised on Lewis being truthful.

[Abby Normal]

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.

Hi David
For comparison, after either chapman or eddowes one of the drs said he wouldn't have been able to do the same thing under x amount of time. I can't remember the exact amount , but it was rather significant like 45 or 60 minutes, something like that.

Maybe you or someone can find the quote, but even simple research, like this which is probably Even on casebook I'm woefully deficient at. Lol.

[David Orsam]

For anyone fixated on exact timings given by witnesses, please consider this report which appeared in a number of newspapers on 10 November 1888, including the Daily Chronicle:

"A man engaged at a market porter, and lives at 3, Miller-court (sic), stated that although his rooms face the scene of the murder, he heard nothing of it until he went out in the morning at half-past ten to get some milk and was stopped by the police".

Now, if we take that literally we have evidence for a huge conspiracy whereby the police were preventing residents from leaving Millers Court a full fifteen minutes before MJK's dead body was discovered! So was this to allow the police themselves to commit the murder?

Well I don't think many people would say so. Most, if not all of us, would surely agree that either the market porter, or the reporter in transcribing what he was told by the market porter, was mistaken and that the market porter must have been speaking of something that happened closer to half-past eleven. In other words, sometimes we have to adjust the timings ourselves to make sense of what happened.

[David Orsam]

Hi David
For comparison, after either chapman or eddowes one of the drs said he wouldn't have been able to do the same thing under x amount of time. I can't remember the exact amount , but it was rather significant like 45 or 60 minutes, something like that.

Maybe you or someone can find the quote, but even simple research, like this which is probably Even on casebook I'm woefully deficient at. Lol.

Hi Abby,

In the case of Nichols, according to forensic physician Jason Payne-James from the Fisherman documentary: "I think the entire process took no more than a couple of minutes."

In the case of Chapman, Dr Phillips said that he thought he himself could not have performed all the injuries he described, even without a struggle, "under a quarter of an hour".

In the case of Eddowes, Dr Brown was asked by the coroner, "About how long do you think it would take to inflict all these wounds, and perpetrate such a deed?" to which he replied, "At least five minutes would be required.".

[Elamarna]

Yes, on a literal interpretation of the "evidence" as to the sightings that is a fair comment but if we start with the premise that Lewis was a witness of truth then I would say that the likelihood is that when he spoke to the LWN reporter one or both of them was confused about the timing and that his sighting actually occurred at 9am. In the P.A. report, a time of 9am was given for his pitch & toss game and, while that game could have lasted an hour, at which point a policeman was spotted, I would suggest it was the time it ended. Perhaps he confused himself the next day into thinking it was 10am but 9am, especially when matched with Mrs M's evidence, would make much more sense.

I repeat that this is premised on Lewis being truthful.

Yes David, on the premise he is truthful, that timing will certainly work without any of the timing issues I was concerned about.

Steve

[John G]

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

Hello David,

Yes, that's technically possible.

[John G]

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.

Yes, I absolutely agree, and I cannot understand the logic of any argument to the contrary.

[John G]

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

Hello Packers,

Just out if interest, why would a large number of pub goers come forward from the previous night? Non-appearing witnesses means a lack of corroboration for Lewis/ Maxwell and I see no reason why they wouldn't come forward, particularly after the police made enquiries at the local pubs.

I believe the only example you have given to the contrary is Stride and the Bricklayers Arms. However, that's not a very good comparison, as Stride may not have been known in that pub and there's a reasonable chance that Best and Gardner misidentified her.

[David Orsam]

Yes, I absolutely agree, and I cannot understand the logic of any argument to the contrary.

Okay John, if you really can't understand any argument to the contrary can I invite you to answer this simple question:

If the barman of the Britannia didn't know who Mary Jane Kelly was, how could he have come forward to say he'd seen her?

[John G]

Okay John, if you really can't understand any argument to the contrary can I invite you to answer this simple question:

If the barman of the Britannia didn't know who Mary Jane Kelly was, how could he have come forward to say he'd seen her?

Hello David,

Yes, but the Britannia was Kelly's local pub, and as she was clearly someone who liked a drink then I would consider this proposition very unlikely, as this would surely be a place where she would be very well known, and may have visited dozens, if not hundreds, of times. In fact, if Maxwell and Lewis are to be believed then she visited the Britannia at least twice on the morning of her death.

And what about the other people that Lewis claimed to see Kelly drinking with. Why didn't they come forward?

[David Orsam]

Yes, but the Britannia was Kelly's local pub, and as she was clearly someone who liked a drink then I would consider this proposition very unlikely, as this would surely be a place where she would be very well known, and may have visited dozens, if not hundreds, of times. In fact, if Maxwell and Lewis are to be believed then she visited the Britannia at least twice on the morning of her death.

Firstly, answer me this:

1. Do you think the barman of the Britannia must have known the names of every single one of the Beer House's customers, regulars or otherwise?

Then tell me: did you read my post about Emily Dimmock?

She lived in St Pauls Road, Camden Town, she loved a drink but she was a regular at the Rising Sun in Euston Road. One of her locals was the Eagle public house in Camden Road but she didn't drink there much. As I mentioned, the barmaid couldn't even recognise her from a photograph (which the police didn't have in the case of Kelly) even though she was drinking there on the night of her murder.

According to Lewis, Kelly was drinking with Barnett at the Horn of Plenty on Thursday night. Prater went to the Ten Bells on the Friday morning. Perhaps that's where Kelly normally drunk. There's so much we don't know.

I'm hoping you can see the logic now.

And what about the other people that Lewis claimed to see Kelly drinking with. Why didn't they come forward?

The same thing applies as with the barman. Did these people know the name of the woman they were drinking with? Perhaps she went in on her own and just started chatting, as people do in pubs. One of them (or more than one of them) could even have murdered her.