Morris Lewis and the reporting of his story

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Jon,

Your explanation of the possible coming and going times of both witnesses aside for a moment, by their own statements it appears that Elizabeth ascended the stairs closer to 1:30am,.... " I left the room on the Thursday at five p.m., and returned to it at about one a.m. on Friday morning. I stood at the corner until about twenty minutes past one. No one spoke to me. McCarthy's shop was open, and I called in, and then went to my room. I should have seen a glimmer of light in going up the stairs if there had been a light in deceased's room, but I noticed none. The partition was so thin I could have heard Kelly walk about in the room", .....and Mary Ann Cox stated "Deceased was still singing at one o'clock when I returned. I remained in the room for a minute to warm my hands as it was raining, and went out again. She was singing still, and I returned to my room at three o'clock. The light was then out and there was no noise."

Elizabeth acknowledged that she may have missed seeing Cox leave.."Could the witness, Mary Ann Cox, have come down the entry between one and half-past one o'clock without your knowledge ? - Yes, she could have done so. "

So, Mary Ann goes by Marys room at 1, Elizabeth is at the corner until 1:20ish. We can take from that that she didnt see Mary Ann go into the passageway, nor come out of it. It seems likely that Mary Ann might have passed by Marys door on the way out around 1:05 or 1:10, at which point in time Elizabeth Prater is still at the corner. Approx 10 minutes goes by and then she enters the passageway stopping by the tuck shop.

That approximately 10 minutes is when Mary, and we would assume Blotchy too, would have to have left for the room for it to be dark and quiet when Elizabth goes by the room on the way upstairs near 1:30.

I think its reasonable to assume its possible Elizabeth didnt see...or rather didnt take notice of Mary Ann coming and going, as she must be familiar with Mary Ann having used the same archway to Dorset for some time. But I dont believe Elizabeth would miss seeing a couple coming out, and she would also know Mary well on sight. During that 10 minute window, no-one who was awake and alert at that location saw Mary and someone else, or Blotchy by himself, leave the courtyard.

On those streets regular foot traffic would be continuous throughout the night with all sorts of characters, perhaps locals when out for some air on Dorset would only recall unusual traffic if asked to remember what they did.

But between 1am and 1:25-30 when Elizabeth climbs the stairs, the room goes from "woman singing with light", to "dark and quiet room". I think the fact that there are no contradictory reports suggesting a witness did see her leave during that 10 minutes, leaves me satisfied with the conclusion that Mary Kelly and likely Blotchy were still in that room at around 1:30.

Mary Ann doesnt come back in until 3am, Blotchy could have slipped out unseen long before then.

[Wickerman]

Jon, before addressing the part above let me just say that directives in official records are far different than interpersonal or departmental memos. Any support for Hutchinsons story after the 16th is in the form of the latter of the two. Belief isnt akin to actively investigating. And as I pointed out, Abberline believed both Schwartz and Huthinson and as we know Schwartz's story was not entered into the records of the Inquest, and we have reports that as early as the 16th the investigation into Marys murder no longer was based on Hutchinsons statement details. Its the investigation records, not some notes scribbled in a pseudo diary, that matter.

Ok Michael, as you wish. Please present those investigation records to support your claim the police discredited Hutchinson's story.

Your unverified newspaper opinions do not qualify, but if yours do, then so do mine.

From my perspective is probable that the reason Hutchisnons description of the suspect is so detailed is because it was intended to accuse a man known locally to be dressed in that manner. And to make Wideawake Hat man less suspicious.

If that is all it was, then Hutch could have come forward anytime on Friday, Saturday or Sunday.

On the quote above, we have a witness that passed directly past Marys door several times before the room was dark and quiet, and after it was. She was then out hoping for a client along Dorset presumably. Another witness was close to the tunnel exit from Millers Court to Dorset Street until nearly 1:30. Neither of those witnesses saw Mary Kelly again after Mary Ann did at 11:45 Thursday night. So...to neatly address the line in bold, since Mary Ann had multiple times past the door and didnt see Mary after almost midnight Thursday, and since Elizabeth Prater is nearby and outside the tunnel from Millers Court up until 1:30..when she comes into the archway and notes Marys room state when climbing the stairs inside to go to her room.....then one must conclude that Mary did not leave before that time of 1:30. When the room was already noticeably quiet and dark. Ergo, she was still in that room at 1:30 when it turned dark. Likely still with Blotchy...since no-one saw him leave before 1:30 either.

Yet Michael, you forget that Mrs Prater, who was the witness in the passage when Cox claimed to have left the court, said she never saw Cox come down the passage.
So, is Cox wrong, or is Prater wrong?

Coroner - Could the witness, Mary Ann Cox, have come down the entry between 1:00 and 1:30 without your knowledge?
Prater - Yes, she could have done so.

Ah, She could have done so!
Therefore, so could anyone else, like Mary Kelly.

Cox said she came back to her room at 1:00, but only stayed a minute before she went back out.
"I remained in the room for a minute to warm my hands, as it was raining, and went out again".

Whereas Prater said she came back home "about" 1:00, so Cox could have arrived and left again before Prater came home.
Then, Prater stood at the end of the court until 1:20, at which time she went up to bed.

Prater was not precise with her time of arrival, she said "about 1:00", two or three minutes past 1:00 and she would have missed Cox.
Kelly was singing at 1:00, Cox heard her, but Prater didn't. So Prater must have arrived a few minutes after 1:00, and she may even have missed Kelly who also left after Cox, but before Prater arrived.

The timing is not so tight as you like to make out.

I also suspect Prater was waiting at the end of the passage, perhaps talking to Mrs McCarthy, as the shop was open at that time.
Which may be another reason she said she might not have seen Cox leave - or anyone else.

[Michael W Richards]

But Michael, you do not have evidence Kelly was in her room between 2:00-3:00 am.

You know very well Kelly was seen entering her room about 11:45 pm, and heard singing until just after 1:00 am, but nothing at all after that. So, lets not pretend you have evidence that Kelly was in her room at 2:00 am, you don't, and you know it.

We do have Prater saying Kelly's room was dark & quiet by 1:30 am, which is not evidence Kelly was in her room, in fact more likely the opposite.

Jon, before addressing the part above let me just say that directives in official records are far different than interpersonal or departmental memos. Any support for Hutchinsons story after the 16th is in the form of the latter of the two. Belief isnt akin to actively investigating. And as I pointed out, Abberline believed both Schwartz and Huthinson and as we know Schwartz's story was not entered into the records of the Inquest, and we have reports that as early as the 16th the investigation into Marys murder no longer was based on Hutchinsons statement details. Its the investigation records, not some notes scribbled in a pseudo diary, that matter.

From my perspective is probable that the reason Hutchisnons description of the suspect is so detailed is because it was intended to accuse a man known locally to be dressed in that manner. And to make Wideawake Hat man less suspicious.

On the quote above, we have a witness that passed directly past Marys door several times before the room was dark and quiet, and after it was. She was then out hoping for a client along Dorset presumably. Another witness was close to the tunnel exit from Millers Court to Dorset Street until nearly 1:30. Neither of those witnesses saw Mary Kelly again after Mary Ann did at 11:45 Thursday night. So...to neatly address the line in bold, since Mary Ann had multiple times past the door and didnt see Mary after almost midnight Thursday, and since Elizabeth Prater is nearby and outside the tunnel from Millers Court up until 1:30..when she comes into the archway and notes Marys room state when climbing the stairs inside to go to her room.....then one must conclude that Mary did not leave before that time of 1:30. When the room was already noticeably quiet and dark. Ergo, she was still in that room at 1:30 when it turned dark. Likely still with Blotchy...since no-one saw him leave before 1:30 either.

[Wickerman]

Jon.........we have zero proof that Hutchinson ever knew Mary Kelly at all, that he actually came from Romford that day, that it was him in the Wideawake Hat, that he ever lent Mary money or that she ever asked him for any, and we have what amounts to be a seriously questionable, quite ridiculously thorough, identification of someone he says he saw from a distance on a dark street after midnight..when we have zero evidence Mary was anywhere but in her room at that time.

But Michael, you do not have evidence Kelly was in her room between 2:00-3:00 am.

You know very well Kelly was seen entering her room about 11:45 pm, and heard singing until just after 1:00 am, but nothing at all after that. So, lets not pretend you have evidence that Kelly was in her room at 2:00 am, you don't, and you know it.

We do have Prater saying Kelly's room was dark & quiet by 1:30 am, which is not evidence Kelly was in her room, in fact more likely the opposite.

[Wickerman]

...

I guess you must have some information that the rank and file beat cops were updated about the investigations status immediately?

You don't seem to be aware that it was part of the officers duty to be updated with the latest information, nothing to do with me.
This requirement is written right there in the Police Code, on p.138, under Printed Informations - "and must be especially studied by every officer...", posted/issued four times a day.

I know you are trying to find a way out, of what is an obvious conclusion.

You argue with me based on what some cops expressed personal beliefs about and despite a news article that said his story WAS discredited? Jeez......opinions are just that...

Take a look at yourself Michael, you are promoting accepting press opinion, as if it is more official than police opinion.
It must be true because ONE newspaper wrote it, yet what police say & do is irrelevant?

You do realize the Star was known for writing inflammable headlines - they were sued for slander & defamation for telling lies about Pizer.
Yet this dubious source is preferable to you instead of the police?
You seem to prefer conspiracy, instead of the truth.

What a cop says his opinion is is not an official stated position of an investigation. You really should already know that.

Yes, but you don't seem to know that a newspaper claim is not official either - yet you treat it as if it was.
How does that make sense, in anybodies book?

[Michael W Richards]

Jon.........we have zero proof that Hutchinson ever knew Mary Kelly at all, that he actually came from Romford that day, that it was him in the Wideawake Hat, that he ever lent Mary money or that she ever asked him for any, and we have what amounts to be a seriously questionable, quite ridiculously thorough, identification of someone he says he saw from a distance on a dark street after midnight..when we have zero evidence Mary was anywhere but in her room at that time.

So maybe now you see why I argue this point, there is no information given by Hutch that is provable or plausible. Add to that he didnt come in, for his alledged friend, until 4 DAYS AFTER HER MURDER and AFTER the Inquest ended. Some pal.

[Michael W Richards]

Perhaps you should factor in the knowns before wildly speculating on something that is easily disputed.

Thanks for the advice. I'll try to keep that in mind next time before I post.

c.d.

No, you wont. But you are entitled to believe what you will cd.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi again Jon, same bs argument, but different post, huh?

The above is something you keep repeating in spite of learning that the police never discredited Hutchinson.
The same Star newspaper published the Gallowey story the next day (16th), a story where a constable was looking for a man of a very different appearance (to Blotchy). Which contradicts their own claim of the previous day (15th) that Hutchinson's story had been 'discredited', clearly it had not.

I guess you must have some information that the rank and file beat cops were updated about the investigations status immediately?

The police were still on the lookout for this fancy-dressed individual.
Not only that, but the Echo published a story on the 19th that reads:
"Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion, with a dark moustache."

So, Michael, isn't it time you dropped this false illusion of his story being truly discredited?

You argue with me based on what some cops expressed personal beliefs about and despite a news article that said his story WAS discredited? Jeez......opinions are just that.....Abberline believed Schwartz and Hutchinson yet Schwartz is not important to the Inquest and Hutch was discredited according to THE REPORT.... Fred also stated in 1903 that he thought Godley caught the Ripper who was Chapman, Anderson believed the killer had been identified as an immigrant jew, Monro believed no-one saw the actual killer with a victim, Arnold said that there were only 4 victims...the last being Mary Kelly in Mitre Square?,... Macnaughten thought Druitt was the Ripper, and he was likely floating when Mary is killed,...he also named 3 likely suspects, 1 was the suicide victim Druitt, and 1 was the incarcerated at the time Ostrog, and Monro said that Sir Melville also said that he "appears to identify the Ripper with the leader of a plot to assassinate Mr Balfour at the Irish Office", Smith had no clue who he was, .....I would suggest that an investigators personal opinion is as valuable when solving a murder case as is having a spoon when you need a knife.

The point being.....obviously using a personal opinion of an investigator, officer or rank and file, is fraught with problems. So Galloway hears that they had been looking for Hutchinsons character by description from a street cop....and you find that compelling evidence, that the investigation of Hutchinsons story was cited by a street cop as being active at that time? And You dont find an article that sates his story was investigated and discredited valid? I guess we can add your personal opinion to the ones above, since they offered no real evidence either.

I have no issue with dismissing Maxwell, I don't have a satisfactory explanation except that she must have seen someone else. It's not the best explanation, but there's no adequate conspiracy that fits all the facts.

That may well be, or maybe she saw no-one and just wanted some spotlight. We will likely never know for sure, but we can be fairly positive that whomever she saw was not a dead woman from room 13

What a cop says his opinion is is not an official stated position of an investigation. You really should already know that.

[c.d.]

Perhaps you should factor in the knowns before wildly speculating on something that is easily disputed.

Thanks for the advice. I'll try to keep that in mind next time before I post.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

My guess is that it was someone (Jack) who she had met maybe earlier in the week and she told him to come by sometime. I think it was an appointment. Maybe she had been expecting him earlier but I think it was an appointment all the same.

c.d.

Again, there is evidence that she wasnt working regularly, that she didnt allow clients into her own room... in her own name, and a cry of "oh-murder" that didnt signal the start of any murders around 4am...(no noise after that cry)....indicating it was most likely an expression of shock, dismay or annoyance. Now youd like to imagine her booking appointments, in her room, for 4am Friday morning after a night of drinking? Your imagination runs rampant cd.

Perhaps you should factor in the knowns before wildly speculating on something that is easily disputed.

[Michael W Richards]

Allowing someone to come into a room in the middle of the night when in all likelihood she had been passed out in her chemise up until that time, suggests an intimate relationship cd.

I disagree. I think it only suggests she knew him in some way maybe just very casually. Given her line of work, just how discerning do you think she could afford to be? Just because Mary was seeing two different men doesn't necessarily connect them to the murder and I see no reason to do so.

c.d.

You disagree? Despite having evidence that Mary had never brought clients to that room before,...ever... and Barnett was living there the whole time until the Tuesday of that week and he objected to her working the streets, her rent is 2 1/2 weeks behind likely due to her not working the streets due to her fear of what had been happening......point here is cd that she wasnt working the streets regularly up to that point, and she arrived home Thursday night so drunk she could barely say hi to Mary Ann.

There is reality and some peoples perceptions of what the reality really was.....the reality is that she wasnt working, she was hung over and undressed when her killer arrives....or if it was Blotchy, he was already there. But then, if he was there, who cried out "oh-murder"? There is only 1 person in the courtyard that could not lay claim to having uttered those words at that time, because she was dead.

And as for whether she knew the man, which you seem skeptical about... if he arrived at that "oh-murder" time, just before 4am.......lets just say this cd.......in 2021 in the United States 76% of the female murders and 56% of the male murders were committed by "by someone known to the victim."

Maybe before just blowing off valid suggestions some understanding of those numbers might help you.

[Wickerman]

...So my belief, summarized, is that Hutchs story was discredited so Wideawake is not Hutch...(or is Hutch but not there for the reasons he gave to police),...

Hello Michael.
The above is something you keep repeating in spite of learning that the police never discredited Hutchinson.
The same Star newspaper published the Gallowey story the next day (16th), a story where a constable was looking for a man of a very different appearance (to Blotchy). Which contradicts their own claim of the previous day (15th) that Hutchinson's story had been 'discredited', clearly it had not.

The police were still on the lookout for this fancy-dressed individual.
Not only that, but the Echo published a story on the 19th that reads:
"Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion, with a dark moustache."

So, Michael, isn't it time you dropped this false illusion of his story being truly discredited?

I have no issue with dismissing Maxwell, I don't have a satisfactory explanation except that she must have seen someone else.
It's not the best explanation, but there's no adequate conspiracy that fits all the facts.

[c.d.]

My guess is that it was someone (Jack) who she had met maybe earlier in the week and she told him to come by sometime. I think it was an appointment. Maybe she had been expecting him earlier but I think it was an appointment all the same.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Allowing someone to come into a room in the middle of the night when in all likelihood she had been passed out in her chemise up until that time, suggests an intimate relationship cd.

I disagree. I think it only suggests she knew him in some way maybe just very casually. Given her line of work, just how discerning do you think she could afford to be? Just because Mary was seeing two different men doesn't necessarily connect them to the murder and I see no reason to do so.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

That means that the killer must have known he wouldn't be disturbed.

How did he know that unless he was privy to her personal arrangements and movements?

She may have told her killer directly without her realising the implications, but it would be more plausible if the killer already knew more about Kelly than we care to realise.

How would that be more plausible? You already mentioned the simplest explanation which would be that she told him.

As for her knowing her killer, the question always has to be how exactly did she know him? It doesn't automatically imply an intimate relationship it also could have been someone she met earlier in the day. "Knowing" runs a wide gamut.

c.d.

Allowing someone to come into a room in the middle of the night when in all likelihood she had been passed out in her chemise up until that time, suggests an intimate relationship cd. And we KNOW Mary was seeing 2 men simultaneously, she said so herself....and the other Joe,...whoever he is, is an intimate friend. So theres at least one other intimate friend,...and she could well have had others.