Morris Lewis Revisited

[curious4]

On the subject of the fire in 13, Millers Court:


The three reasons advanced for its lighting are:-

Provision of Light

Provision of Heat

Destruction of Evidence.

The FBI view is that most, if not all, serial killers have earlier indulged in compulsive fire starting; it might, therefore, be the case that the killer lit a fire simply because he liked lighting fires.

(From my hospital bed) at last, commonsense!

Best wishes
C4

[Elamarna]

(From my hospital bed) at last, commonsense!

Best wishes
C4

C4

i wish you well

Steve

[GUT]

(From my hospital bed) at last, commonsense!

Best wishes
C4

Good luck.

[miss marple]

Hi David,

We can argue about Mrs Maxwell for years and will never get to the truth, but Lewis is another question. His description is so far removed from any other description of MK as to seem to be a different woman and does not match the remains on the bed which appear to be of a taller woman matching the 5,7 description of everyone else. A tall fair girl is not 5,3 short stout and dark.

I will check out your post on the reporting of Lewis and see if I can dig anything up.

Miss Marple

[curious4]

Hello GUT, Steve,

Feeling much better already, thank you :-). Just waiting to hear what they have decided to do with my gallstones :-(.

Best wishes
C4

[GUT]

Hello GUT, Steve,

Feeling much better already, thank you :-). Just waiting to hear what they have decided to do with my gallstones :-(.

Best wishes
C4

Ouch. Mrs Gut had hers out a few years back, good luck.

[Bridewell]

(From my hospital bed) at last, commonsense!

Best wishes
C4

Thank for the favourable comment. I wish you a speedy recovery from whatever it is that places you in a hospital bed!

[Bridewell]

Hi David,

We can argue about Mrs Maxwell for years and will never get to the truth, but Lewis is another question. His description is so far removed from any other description of MK as to seem to be a different woman and does not match the remains on the bed which appear to be of a taller woman matching the 5,7 description of everyone else. A tall fair girl is not 5,3 short stout and dark.

Miss Marple

A couple of points on this:

A woman of 5' 3" would not, I think, have been seen as 'short' in the LVP.

How do you determine the height of MJK from the photograph of her remains with any degree of accuracy?

Care is needed with witnesses who use descriptive terms like 'fair' and 'dark'. Both can allude to hair colour, yes, but also to skin tone. 'Fair' can also refer to the observer's perception that the woman was physically attractive. The 'Fair Emma' reference with regard to MJK could even be suggesting a likeness to Lady Hamilton with whom she shared the nickname (as well as, perhaps, a tendency towards being overweight).

[curious4]

Thank for the favourable comment. I wish you a speedy recovery from whatever it is that places you in a hospital bed!

Hello Bridewell

Thank you :-)

Gallstones, it seems :-(! Hoping they won't have to operate. Nest of vampires this hospital, took five of them to squeeze out what little blood I have left this morning :-(.

Best wishes
Gwyneth

[curious4]

Ouch. Mrs Gut had hers out a few years back, good luck.

Thank you :-).

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

We can argue about Mrs Maxwell for years and will never get to the truth, but Lewis is another question. His description is so far removed from any other description of MK as to seem to be a different woman and does not match the remains on the bed which appear to be of a taller woman matching the 5,7 description of everyone else. A tall fair girl is not 5,3 short stout and dark.

I will check out your post on the reporting of Lewis and see if I can dig anything up.

Hi Miss Marple - yes, I said in my last post that your point about Lewis was a reasonable one and in my OP in this thread you will see that I put forward a reason to cast doubt on his veracity. At the same time, the point I have repeatedly made about Mrs Maxwell is that there is no real counter-evidence to contradict her testimony or to contradict the notion that MJK was alive at the time she said she saw her alive. That is not, in my opinion, a point that needs to be argued about for years! It's something that is fairly clear. At the same time, I'm not saying that Maxwell must have been correct and/or telling the truth, only that the evidence against her is not really present.

[packers stem]

The landlady at the Brittainia, said MK was not in the pub that morning, the pub was not very busy. Lewis and Maxwell match each other in terms of timings but their description of MK does not match the descriptions of those who know her well.There are two irreconcilable accounts of Mary's last hours.

I think to suggest she was killed after 10 in the morning is pushing the envelope too far. The doctors were not idiots and a ball park of Mary being killed in the early hours makes more sense.
Does one believe the doctors and her friends and the landlady of Ringers or does one believe Lewis and Maxwell?

Miss Marple

How about accepting the glaringly obvious,believing Maxwell, Lewis, an earlier time of death but not believing Barnett correctly identified the body.

[GUT]

How about accepting the glaringly obvious,believing Maxwell, Lewis, an earlier time of death but not believing Barnett correctly identified the body.

Or even more obvious believing Maxwell Lewis and Joe's ID and a later time of death.

[Bridewell]

Or even more obvious believing Maxwell Lewis and Joe's ID and a later time of death.

I am not alone then! Praise the Lord! Far too much emphasis is placed, in my view on the claim that the injuries could not have been inflicted in less that two hours. Not by a surgeon using surgical tools perhaps, but say it was done by someone who trained as a butcher - two hours? Really? I suspect not. I asked a friend who is a joiner by trade how long it would take to inflict the external injuries with a cooper's draw knife. His reply - "A few seconds - hardly that actually."

Lewis and Maxwell both claim to have seen MJK in the morning. Not one sighting, but two, by different individuals. Most people dismiss Schwartz because his account is uncorroborated by other witnesses; here we have corroborative accounts of MJK being alive later than she should have been, yet both are dismissed. How many witnesses to the same fact are needed if two are insufficient? Three? Twenty-three? They could both be mistaken / lying yes, but it's dangerous to assume it just because their testimony is inconvenient.

[Bridewell]

How about accepting the glaringly obvious,believing Maxwell, Lewis, an earlier time of death but not believing Barnett correctly identified the body.

Hi Packer Stem.

Barnett had known Kelly for about 18 months and co-habited with her for most of that time. No-one saw any woman other than Kelly enter her room that night; no-one saw Kelly herself leave the room and not return. The woman was in Kelly's bed in Kelly's room and identified, by Barnett, as being Kelly. Neither Indian Harry, nor McCarthy, both of whom knew Kelly and saw the body, ever suggested that the remains might not be, or didn't look like, Kelly. Kelly was never seen or heard of alive after 9th November.

How do you arrive at incorrect identification being a "glaringly obvious" conclusion?