Morris Lewis Revisited

[John G]

Hi David,

I tend to agree with the above post, however, George Hutchinson's police and press accounts were very similar and, in my opinion, he's a far from convincing witness.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Another possibility to consider is that Mrs Kennedy/Sarah Lewis was talking bollocks.

It's not impossible but, bearing in mind that the only versions of the Kennedy/Lewis story of which I am aware are broadly consistent with each other, there doesn't seem to me to be any sound basis on which to reach such a conclusion.

[John G]

You see John, you've started this line of argument by speculating (against the opinion of Inspector Abberline it should be said) that Kelly started the fire and then when I agree with you that it's possible, and she could have done it in the morning, you pile speculation upon speculation and start guessing about her state of mind and her thought process about which you have no reliable basis to speculate whatsoever. I could argue the exact opposite; namely that at night she was wrapped up warm in her bed but in the daytime she was walking around and wanted to bring men back so she could pay for her rent and couldn't bring them back to a freezing room. It's all just pointless discussion and guesswork. Don't you see that?

Do you seriously think that the existence of the fire indicates that Kelly wasn't killed in the morning?

I call it wishful thinking.

Hello David,

Well, I suggested that Kelly could have started the fire and the killer took advantage of this, i.e. by adding the clothes. Obviously it can't be proved the fire was started in the evening but, for the reasons I have given, I think it more likely than not.

Regarding your argument that she may have started the fire so she could bring back clients, I think this pretty much untenable. Firstly, where is the evidence she was soliciting on the morning of her murder? Secondly, why would she be crazy enough to leave a fire burning whilst "she was walking around" for purpose of solicitation or, for that matter, any purpose? I mean, by the time she returned with a client the fire may have virtually/completely burnt out.

[David Orsam]

I have not suggested that Mrs Kennedy and Sarah Lewis were two different women. That's your surmise.

Yes, because I wasn't born yesterday.

I simply want to know why their stories are inconsistent.

Well I've been trying to tell you that the accounts of Mrs Kennedy and Sarah Lewis are NOT inconsistent but you don't seem to be the slightest bit interested.

You could easily have told me where you got your version of Mrs Kennedy's story from but decided not to (I'm guessing an American newspaper?) but the only mystery, if there is one, is why the two versions of Mrs Kennedy's story are inconsistent, assuming there really are two versions.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Another possibility to consider is that Mrs Kennedy/Sarah Lewis was talking bollocks.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Yes, and my point was, as above, that the sources contain no evidence for Sarah Lewis not being able to remember events in the past. The correspondence between the police investigation source and the inquest source for her statements, the latter in which Lewis even adds details without contradicting herself, makes this clear.

That's not quite the case though Pierre because in her oral evidence she said she was at the Keyler house in Millers Court at "half past 2" and that she knew the time by having looked at Spitalfields Church clock as she passed it. In her statement to the police she said she came to stop with the Keylers "Between 2 and 3 o'clock this morning." Now I'm not saying the two statements are inconsistent - because 2.30 is clearly between 2 and 3 - but if she remembered seeing the church clock why didn't she tell the police the precise time of 2.30? Further, in her police statement there is no mention of seeing the suspicious man by Ringers on the Friday morning. Why not? Had she forgotten about it only to remember it when giving her oral evidence?

But really Pierre none of this matters in the slightest for, while you have successfully drawn me down an irrelevant path, you have completely failed to demonstrate that the individual representative who gave the story to the Evening Post about Kelly drinking in a public house on the Friday morning is in any way unreliable. Until you can do this, the whole story about Mrs Kennedy is 100% irrelevant to anything and nothing more than a distraction, to deflect attention away from your confusion in your earlier posts in this thread.

[Pierre]

Hi David,

I have not suggested that Mrs Kennedy and Sarah Lewis were two different women. That's your surmise.

I simply want to know why their stories are inconsistent.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

It is a typical problem for historical sources. They are very often inconsistent. Even the most respected sources are based on numerous inconsistencies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO_lS0QcZxs

This is why we use source criticism!

Regards, Pierre

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

I have not suggested that Mrs Kennedy and Sarah Lewis were two different women. That's your surmise.

I simply want to know why their stories are inconsistent.

Regards,

Simon

[Pierre]

Before I waste my time Simon, I would suggest you first compare the account of Sarah Lewis with the reported account of Mrs Kennedy in the Evening Post which can be found here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8685

Or you can use the Star of 10 November or LWN of 11 November if you prefer.

What I believe you will find is that the two accounts are consistent save for the bit about Kennedy staying with her parents. But that can easily be explained by a simple misunderstanding between the reporter and Kennedy during the interview.

If you do that, then I really don't need to bother tracking down another version of Kennedy's story which happens to be slightly different to the version of her story published in the Evening Post.

It's all there to be found Simon.

There is no need to do it, David. I have a rubbish bin for newspaper articles. Feel free to use it anytime.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Hello David,

I disagree. At night time it would presumably have been significantly colder than mid morning. Moreover, I think it reasonable to postulate that she would have been intending to spend far less time in her room mid-morning than, say, at night time-even if she felt ill or had a hangover. It's also worth emphasizing that, for someone in such reduced circumstances, and seriously behind on the rent, a fire would no doubt have been something of an extravagance.

You see John, you've started this line of argument by speculating (against the opinion of Inspector Abberline it should be said) that Kelly started the fire and then when I agree with you that it's possible, and she could have done it in the morning, you pile speculation upon speculation and start guessing about her state of mind and her thought process about which you have no reliable basis to speculate whatsoever. I could argue the exact opposite; namely that at night she was wrapped up warm in her bed but in the daytime she was walking around and wanted to bring men back so she could pay for her rent and couldn't bring them back to a freezing room. It's all just pointless discussion and guesswork. Don't you see that?

Do you seriously think that the existence of the fire indicates that Kelly wasn't killed in the morning?

I call it wishful thinking.

[Pierre]

Bonjour Pierre,

What is were to be found?

Everything in my post is to be found in the newspaper reports and inquest testimony.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

"The newspaper reports". No good sources, Simon.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

And I have no wish to waste my time.

As it's all there to be found, find it yourself. I believe you'll discover that the various accounts are inconsistent.

Like I've already said Simon, I have compared the account by Mrs Kennedy in the Evening Post with the account of Sarah Lewis in her inquest evidence on the same point by point basis that you did and I have concluded that, with the one exception I have mentioned, the two accounts are basically consistent. So I've done the exercise. If you think it would be a waste of time to do it yourself then you'll never get to the truth of the matter: which is that Mrs Kennedy and Sarah Lewis were one and the same person.

[Pierre]

Hi All,

1. Sarah Lewis lived at 24/34 Great Pearl Street, Spitalfields. She was a Laundress.

Mrs Kennedy lived somewhere. She did something for a living.

Are you sure about this?

2. Sarah Lewis visited Millers Court and stayed with the Keylers at No. 2.

Mrs Kennedy lived in Millers Court with her parents—the Gallaghers—at No. ?

Have you found them in a census?

3. Sarah Lewis arrived at Millers Court first "between 2.00 and 3.00 am" and then 2.30 am.

Mrs Kennedy arrived at Millers Court shortly after 3.00 am.

They almost met!

4. Sarah Lewis heard a female scream of murder just before 4.00 am.

Mrs Kennedy heard a cry of murder between 3.30 and 4.00 am.

They both had good ears.

5. Sarah Lewis was accosted by a man in Bethnal Green Road at about 8.00 pm on Wednesday 7th Nov.

Mrs Kennedy was accosted by a man in Bethnal Green Road at about 8.00 pm on Wednesday 7th Nov.

Bethnal Green was a dangerous place at Wednesday 7th November every year, about 8.00. Full of men with black bags accosting women.

6. At the time, Sarah Lewis was in the company of "another female".

At the time, Mrs Kennedy was in the company of "her sister".

A man who liked to accost women in pairs. Looking, perhaps, for "two Norwich women"?

7. Sarah Lewis described the man as "short, pale faced, with a black small moustache, about 40 years of age. The bag he had was about a foot or nine inches long. He had on a round high hat - a high one for a round one. He had a brownish long overcoat and a short black coat underneath and pepper & salt trousers".

Mrs Kennedy described the man as wearing "a pair of dark mixture trousers and a long dark overcoat. He wore a low crowned brown hat and carried a shiny black bag in his hand . . . he was a man of medium stature, with dark moustache, and . . . had an extremely awkward gait, which could at once be recognised.

He must have brought some hats with him, and changed hat very quickly between the attacks. Such a trickster!

8. Sarah Lewis, on nearing Millers Court at 2.30 am, saw "the same man with a female in Commercial Street near Mr Ringers Public House — near the market — He had then no overcoat on but he had the bag & the same hat trousers & undercoat."

Mrs Kennedy, passing The Ringers at 3.00 am, saw the man who accosted her. He was respectably dressed and was talking to "the deceased".

Also doing some trick with the overcoat, I hear. Remarkable!

9. George Hutchinson saw Mary Kelly and Mister Astrakhan enter Millers Court at around 2.10 am. They did not come out while GH was standing opposite.

10. Sarah Lewis saw a man standing opposite Millers Court at 2.30 am.

So perhaps the man was George Hutchinson? Accosting women in pairs each year 9 November?

11. George Hutchinson remained opposite Millers Court until "the [Spitalfields] clock struck 3 o'clock."

12. George Hutchinson did not report seeing either Sarah Lewis [2.30 am] or Mrs Kennedy [3.00 am].

But they certainly saw him, didnīt they?

Mrs Kennedy did not report seeing him.

13. At 3.00 am, when Mrs Kennedy saw "the deceased" standing outside The Britannia with the man who had accosted her and her sister in Bethnal Green Road on 7th November, MJK had been in Room 13 with Mister Astrakhan for 45 minutes.

14. The Evening News, 10th November 1888—

"Mrs. Kennedy is confident that the man whom she noticed speaking to the woman Kelly at three o'clock on Friday morning is identical with the person who accosted her on the previous Wednesday. Both she and her sister are most positive in their assertion that they could at once identify the man if they saw him."

Good old Mrs Kennedy!

15. Mrs Kennedy knew—or at least could recognize—"the deceased".

Sarah Lewis "did not know the deceased."

Thank you, Simon.*

Regards,

Simon

Regards, Pierre (*All I say above is irony).

[David Orsam]

No, David. You are wrong again.

Sarah Lewis stated in the inquest: "About Wednesday night at 8 oclock I was going along Bethnal Green Road with another female..." (p. 414). And a bit further she states: "On the Friday morning about half past two when I was coming to Millers Court I met the same man with a female - ..." (p. 415).

So, as I told you, the testimony made at the inquest by Sarah Lewis is additive, and she is adding that she saw "the same man", the man she saw about Wednesday, on the Friday too. You did not read the whole text, David.

So there is no problem with the statement of Sarah Lewis and she has no problems with her memory.

I accept that I made an error and confused the two accounts but where you are wrong is to say to me "You are wrong again". It is my only error. Because when I make mistakes, I admit it. Further, it doesn't help you at all because the account in the Evening Post about this incident by Mrs Kennedy is 100% consistent with the account given by Sarah Lewis, thus confirming the credibility of the Evening Post report (not that I care whether it's credible or not because you haven't established it's by the same reporter referred in the previous day's Evening Post).

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

And I have no wish to waste my time.

As it's all there to be found, find it yourself. I believe you'll discover that the various accounts are inconsistent.

Regards,

Simon