Morris Lewis and the reporting of his story

[John G]

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.

Hi David,

Okay, fair point about the missing police reports. However, if Lewis' evidence was considered remotely plausible he would surely become one of the most important witnesses in the entire inquiry, i.e. because he would have been the last witness to see Kelly alive and he apparently saw her in the company of a suspect called "Dan", who was possibly Joseph Barnett, at the Britannia.

Of course, Israel Schwartz, if his evidence is to be believed, would also have been the last person to see a victim alive, and with a suspect, but despite not appearing at the inquest either, his evidence, at least initially, was taken so seriously that it was even commented on by the Home Secretary!

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;375018]

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.

Hi David,

The police took the statements of the witnesses on Dorset Street 9 November. Mrs Maxwell was one of them. Do you know if they took them separately, or were any of the witnesses questioned together?

Regards, Pierre

[packers stem]

Schwartz, whose testimony was highly regarded during the stride investigation,still got nowhere near the inquest. Fact remains, we just don't know why Lewis wasn't called although he could well have been interviewed and it's highly probable that he would have been.
We can't know why he wasn't called, just like Schwartz
This is why we debate the probabilities and possibilities :-)

[packers stem]

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.

Hi David
Thanks for the reply

[John G]

Schwartz, whose testimony was highly regarded during the stride investigation,still got nowhere near the inquest. Fact remains, we just don't know why Lewis wasn't called although he could well have been interviewed and it's highly probable that he would have been.
We can't know why he wasn't called, just like Schwartz
This is why we debate the probabilities and possibilities :-)

Frankly I think Schwartz is a very dubious witness, nonetheless, as I mentioned in my earlier post, despite not appearing at the inquest his evidence was commented on by a number of senior officers, and even the Home Secretary!

Not saw Maurice Lewis, who quickly disappeared into obscurity.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Edward;375026]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.

Actually, they did!

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.

Naturally.

The police reports refer to number 13 as a room because the police had been inside number 13.

This is quite correct.

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.

So the conclusion is that Morris Lewis might not even have known Mary Jane Kelly. And if he didn´t, we don´t know who he is speaking about.

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

True. Can´t be much hair left to pull here anymore !

Regards, Pierre

[packers stem]

Hi John

Hi David,

Okay, fair point about the missing police reports. However, if Lewis' evidence was considered remotely plausible he would surely become one of the most important witnesses in the entire inquiry, i.e. because he would have been the last witness to see Kelly alive and he apparently saw her in the company of a suspect called "Dan", who was possibly Joseph Barnett, at the Britannia.

Of course, Israel Schwartz, if his evidence is to be believed, would also have been the last person to see a victim alive, and with a suspect, but despite not appearing at the inquest either, his evidence, at least initially, was taken so seriously that it was even commented on by the Home Secretary!

Bingo...
My thoughts entirely
I do hope people can see the parallels

[David Orsam]

However, if Lewis' evidence was considered remotely plausible he would surely become one of the most important witnesses in the entire inquiry, i.e. because he would have been the last witness to see Kelly alive and he apparently saw her in the company of a suspect called "Dan", who was possibly Joseph Barnett, at the Britannia.

Like Caroline Maxwell, whose evidence must have been considered "remotely plausible", was one of the most important witnesses in the entire inquiry?

[David Orsam]

So the conclusion is that Morris Lewis might not even have known Mary Jane Kelly. And if he didn´t, we don´t know who he is speaking about.

Pierre, how do you manage to extract from Edward's post, in which he was talking about people who were not familiar with number 13 Millers Court, a conclusion that Morris Lewis might not have known Mary Jane Kelly?

[John G]

Hi John



Bingo...
My thoughts entirely
I do hope people can see the parallels

Hello Packers,

Well, I think I might just have discovered who your prime suspect is! However, as I noted, Schwartz was initially taken extremely seriously by a number of senior figures. 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.

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!

[John G]

Like Caroline Maxwell, whose evidence must have been considered "remotely plausible", was one of the most important witnesses in the entire inquiry?

In her case there must have been serious suspicion that she'd mixed Kelly up with someone else. Moreover, enquiries at the Britannia, and other local pubs, found that there was no evidence that Kelly had been served with drink on the morning of her murder, as Maxwell claimed (this also undermines Lewis as well).

Nonetheless, I accept this is something that the grand conspiracy theorists will never accept (not that I'm suggesting your one of those, David!).

Moreover, if Lewis and Maxwell are correct, there must surely be a large number of witnesses who were aware that Kelly was still alive well after the time she was presumed to have been murdered, and witnesses who were either involved, or aware, of her dramatic "escape" from Whitechapel.

And the temptation for anyone of those witnesses to come forward over the following days, months and years must have been enormous. I mean, anyone who did come forward would probably have become such a local celebrity that they might well have never had to buy a drink again!

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

The police took the statements of the witnesses on Dorset Street 9 November. Mrs Maxwell was one of them. Do you know if they took them separately, or were any of the witnesses questioned together?

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.

[GUT]

In her case there must have been serious suspicion that she'd mixed Kelly up with someone else. Moreover, enquiries at the Britannia, and other local pubs, found that there was no evidence that Kelly had been served with drink on the morning of her murder, as Maxwell claimed (this also undermines Lewis as well).

Nonetheless, I accept this is something that the grand conspiracy theorists will never accept (not that I'm suggesting your one of those, David!).

Moreover, if Lewis and Maxwell are correct, there must surely be a large number of witnesses who were aware that Kelly was still alive well after the time she was presumed to have been murdered, and witnesses who were either involved, or aware, of her dramatic "escape" from Whitechapel.

And the temptation for anyone of those witnesses to come forward over the following days, months and years must have been enormous. I mean, anyone who did come forward would probably have become such a local celebrity that they might well have never had to buy a drink again!

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.

[David Orsam]

Moreover, enquiries at the Britannia, and other local pubs, found that there was no evidence that Kelly had been served with drink on the morning of her murder, as Maxwell claimed (this also undermines Lewis as well).

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.

[David Orsam]

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.

Heh! See my post#104.