Morris Lewis and the reporting of his story

[David Orsam]

I would also note that the landlady of the Britannia said that the pub hadn't been busy that morning and she was therefore certain Kelly hadn't been there

Where does this come from out of interest John?

[David Orsam]

Hi Abby,

No he did not, meaning if Lewis was correct, then Barnett must have lied, which surely elevates his status to that of prime suspect. However, she apparently had a drink with Elizabeth Foster in the Ten Bells, leaving about 7:05 pm. However, Barnett did admit to seeing her later, i.e in her room, about 7:30pm, and this is corroborated by Lizzie Albrook:

The last time I saw her [Kelly] was on Thursday night about 8:00, when I left her in her room with Joe Barnett, who had been living with her."

No other witness supports Lewis, although his reference to the milk and the Britannia might, of course, might be based on gossip he overheard prior to speaking to the press (this would also explain why his evidence doesn't correspond with Maxwell's, for instance, in Lewis's account it is Kelly who returns with the milk, whereas in Maxwell's it is she who had gone to the milk shop.) In fact, it isn't inconceivable that he spoke to Maxwell, and learned directly of her evidence, prior to his own meeting with the journalists.

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?

[packers stem]

Hi Abby,

No he did not, meaning if Lewis was correct, then Barnett must have lied, which surely elevates his status to that of prime suspect. However, she apparently had a drink with Elizabeth Foster in the Ten Bells, leaving about 7:05 pm. However, Barnett did admit to seeing her later, i.e in her room, about 7:30pm, and this is corroborated by Lizzie Albrook:

The last time I saw her [Kelly] was on Thursday night about 8:00, when I left her in her room with Joe Barnett, who had been living with her."

No other witness supports Lewis, although his reference to the milk and the Britannia might, of course, might be based on gossip he overheard prior to speaking to the press (this would also explain why his evidence doesn't correspond with Maxwell's, for instance, in Lewis's account it is Kelly who returns with the milk, whereas in Maxwell's it is she who had gone to the milk shop.) In fact, it isn't inconceivable that he spoke to Maxwell, and learned directly of her evidence, prior to his own meeting with the journalists.

Hi John
Why use lizzie Allbrook as corroboration of anything?
Maria Harvey under oath stated that it was her that was with Kelly
By your usual reasoning Allbrook would be an unfit witness, not having testified,would she not?
With a newspaper statement that contradicts that of a sworn witness
I'm not saying Allbrook was lying as harvey's times report has her with Kelly at new Court but someone got their lines crossed and we can not know.
Point is all of your argument against Lewis falls down if you use Allbrook for evidence

[packers stem]

Morris Lewis didn't, of course, attend the inquest, which is one of the factors that undermines his evidence. So what might be the explanation for this? It couldn't be his claim to have seen Kelly after the time of death estimates, because that argument applies equally to Maxwell. And in fact some of his evidence does lend support to Maxwell's, i.e the issue of the milk and seeing Kelly in company either in or near to the Britannia, which makes his non-attendance all the more inexplicable.

It seems to me, therefore, that a reasonable inference is that something happened to critically undermine his credibility. For instance, perhaps he admitted to the police that he had got seriously carried away when telling his story to journalists, possibly whilst being plied with alcohol in the Britannia!

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

[John G]

Hi johnG
Do we know if Barnett said he was drinking with Mary the night before? I thought the last time he saw her he had visited her at her place.
Do any other witness corroborate ANYTHING Maurice Lewis says?
Does maxwell morning sighting jibe at all with anything Lewis says?
Does anyone's?

Hi Abby,

No he did not, meaning if Lewis was correct, then Barnett must have lied, which surely elevates his status to that of prime suspect. However, she apparently had a drink with Elizabeth Foster in the Ten Bells, leaving about 7:05 pm. However, Barnett did admit to seeing her later, i.e in her room, about 7:30pm, and this is corroborated by Lizzie Albrook:

The last time I saw her [Kelly] was on Thursday night about 8:00, when I left her in her room with Joe Barnett, who had been living with her."

No other witness supports Lewis, although his reference to the milk and the Britannia might, of course, might be based on gossip he overheard prior to speaking to the press (this would also explain why his evidence doesn't correspond with Maxwell's, for instance, in Lewis's account it is Kelly who returns with the milk, whereas in Maxwell's it is she who had gone to the milk shop.) In fact, it isn't inconceivable that he spoke to Maxwell, and learned directly of her evidence, prior to his own meeting with the journalists.

I would also note that the landlady of the Britannia said that the pub hadn't been busy that morning and she was therefore certain Kelly hadn't been there

[Abby Normal]

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 johnG
Do we know if Barnett said he was drinking with Mary the night before? I thought the last time he saw her he had visited her at her place.
Do any other witness corroborate ANYTHING Maurice Lewis says?
Does maxwell morning sighting jibe at all with anything Lewis says?
Does anyone's?

[John G]

Morris Lewis didn't, of course, attend the inquest, which is one of the factors that undermines his evidence. So what might be the explanation for this? It couldn't be his claim to have seen Kelly after the time of death estimates, because that argument applies equally to Maxwell. And in fact some of his evidence does lend support to Maxwell's, i.e the issue of the milk and seeing Kelly in company either in or near to the Britannia, which makes his non-attendance all the more inexplicable.

It seems to me, therefore, that a reasonable inference is that something happened to critically undermine his credibility. For instance, perhaps he admitted to the police that he had got seriously carried away when telling his story to journalists, possibly whilst being plied with alcohol in the Britannia!

[John G]

Is it possible that Lewis simply didn't want to talk to the police? He was quick enough to disappear from the court when one was spotted.

But after the press reports they would certainly have wanted to talk to him. Mind you, I can understand why he might want to avoid the police, and perhaps having to explain how he'd got carried away whilst being interviewed by the press, possibly whilst being plied with alcohol in the Britannia!

And, of course, if he was summoned to attend the coroner's inquest he couldn't just simply refuse, not without risking being held in contempt.

[Joshua Rogan]

Is it possible that Lewis simply didn't want to talk to the police? He was quick enough to disappear from the court when one was spotted.

[John G]

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.



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.

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?

[Bridewell]

[QUOTE=Pierre;375142]

"Could have" is not an historical hypothesis.

Regards, Pierre

"One of them murdered her" would be a statement (of fact or of opinion).

"One of them could have murdered her" is speculative and therefore (as these are historical events) an historical hypothesis.

[Abby Normal]

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.".

Hi David
It's the dr Phillips quote I was thinking of, but for some reason I thought he had said a much longer time, but obviously I was mistaken.
Thank you for posting this.

[David Orsam]

You should try and put forward historical hypotheses sometimes. Would give your arguments some substance.

You should try identifying the person who, you claim, murdered all these women in 1888. Might give your arguments some substance.

[David Orsam]

David,

do you not understand Pierre? To Him any one who suggests anything, is putting forward an hypothesis even your statement about the time taken for the mutilations in post#123:

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

is SEEN by Pierre as one.

I'm starting to work that out Steve.

I wonder how Pierre will cope with me saying this:

For all I know, the mutilations could have taken 5 hours, or 5 minutes.

[Pierre]

I wasn't putting forward a historical hypothesis so your statement is pointless.

You should try and put forward historical hypotheses sometimes. Would give your arguments some substance.