Morris Lewis and the reporting of his story

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;375131]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?

Hi John,

What are the sources for those "claims" of Lewis?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

What are the sources for those "claims" of Lewis?

Further proof that you didn't read the OP in this thread.

[packers stem]

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.

Hi John
I believe the comings and goings of the previous evening would at the time have been of equal importance as the morning of the 9th.
Most, if not all,accounts we have other than maxwell officially are from either residents of millers court or close friends and acquaintances ie Harvey,Barnett or the first people to discover the body Bowyer,McCarthy.
Yet you are fixed on the morning sightings not having sufficient corroboration.
Where are the reports from the pub clients regarding Kelly drinking with anyone.....leaving with 'blotchy' etc
Do you doubt every witness? If you believe Cox 'blotchy' story how come no one in the pub came forward to mention him and corroborate?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;375136]

One of them (or more than one of them) could even have murdered her.

"Could have" is not an historical hypothesis.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

"Could have" is not an historical hypothesis.

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

[Elamarna]

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

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.

Steve

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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]

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.

[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!