Morris Lewis Revisited

[MsWeatherwax]

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?

While I don't disagree with your point about three different people believing that it was Kelly in that bed, the problem is that she was never heard of before the murder either.

I think it's reasonable to say that her neither her long term partner, landlord or rent collector raised the alarm that it wasn't her, which leads me to believe that it was the person they knew as Mary Jane. However, we cannot use the premise that she did not resurface after 1888 as evidence that the body in that bed was definitely 'Mary Jane Kelly', because in all probability that was an alias. Wherever she was from, she'd reinvented herself once, and could very well do it again.

[Bridewell]

While I don't disagree with your point about three different people believing that it was Kelly in that bed, the problem is that she was never heard of before the murder either.

I think it's reasonable to say that her neither her long term partner, landlord or rent collector raised the alarm that it wasn't her, which leads me to believe that it was the person they knew as Mary Jane. However, we cannot use the premise that she did not resurface after 1888 as evidence that the body in that bed was definitely 'Mary Jane Kelly', because in all probability that was an alias. Wherever she was from, she'd reinvented herself once, and could very well do it again.

Why would another woman have to be killed in order for MJK to do a disappearing act though? It wasn't difficult in the LVP. Just move to another city, or even another part of the same one, and start again under another alias. Postulating that the body on the bed was someone other than Kelly asks more questions than it answers, to my mind.

[packers stem]

Why would another woman have to be killed in order for MJK to do a disappearing act though? It wasn't difficult in the LVP. Just move to another city, or even another part of the same one, and start again under another alias. Postulating that the body on the bed was someone other than Kelly asks more questions than it answers, to my mind.

Depends why she had to disappear...
Already had one dead Mary Kelly found in Mitre Square a few weeks back....
If she'd been found living a few miles away, weeks later we may have had a hattrick

[Abby Normal]

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.

Hi David
is it possible Morris Lewis read of maxwells account first and used that for a fake sighting-for his 15 minutes of fame, instead of possible mistaken identity?

apologies in advance if you've already answered this or shown it couldn't be the case.

[packers stem]

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?

Hi Bridewell
McCarthy described her to the press more than once as completely beyond recognition then turns up at the inquest all guns blazing saying he'd recognise her dead or alive so I think it's safe to dismiss him as unreliable....
Bowyer had a quick peep through the curtains and there are a number of possibilities with Barnett.
Zoom in on the photo.... Can you see the eyes?
Ears aren't an identifiable feature unless they're peculiar so he must have meant hair. The hair according to Gabe was matted with blood and gore which would alter colour and appearance.
This is presuming that if she had a plan to "make away" with herself as she told friends that he wasn't aware...
I suspect he was aware and helped.
We have zero evidence of any mortuary identification so all we have to go on is the 'peep through the window'
And if there was a body that could be identified at the mortuary it's fairly obvious that Maxwell would have been whisked off there considering the circumstances.
Eddowes was incorrectly identified by someone as being her own sister is worth remembering... Compare the facial mutilations on Eddowes with Kelly.
The person identified as being Kelly was identified solely by location.... It's worthless
Had she been found in the street no one on here would believe it

[Abby Normal]

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.

Hi Bridewell
I had been very dismissive of Maxwell and lewis previously, but this thread has made me reconsider that position. I now think that its possible MK could have been murdered in the morning daylight hours though it would be tight.
So there is hope for people on casebook to admit they are wrong(me) and change their previously held beliefs!!

[David Orsam]

Hi David
is it possible Morris Lewis read of maxwells account first and used that for a fake sighting-for his 15 minutes of fame, instead of possible mistaken identity?

apologies in advance if you've already answered this or shown it couldn't be the case.

It was a long time ago now but I do say in the OP, of Lewis, that "it does appear that he had adopted someone else's story when he spoke to the LWN reporter." I don't think it was Mrs Maxwell though; I was thinking of the two unidentified ladies who were said to have seen Kelly drinking that morning. Possibly they were reluctant to speak to the LWN reporter so Lewis decided to tell their story for them as if he had witnessed it himself.

[Abby Normal]

It was a long time ago now but I do say in the OP, of Lewis, that "it does appear that he had adopted someone else's story when he spoke to the LWN reporter." I don't think it was Mrs Maxwell though; I was thinking of the two unidentified ladies who were said to have seen Kelly drinking that morning. Possibly they were reluctant to speak to the LWN reporter so Lewis decided to tell their story for them as if he had witnessed it himself.

Thanks david-appreciate that!

[miss marple]

i am going to test the morning murder theory.
Lewis's sighting of MK is 10 am in Ringers with some people.
Matilda Ringer was the landlady of The Brittania she lived there with her children and one live in barmaid, different one in 81/92 census. Her husband Walter had died in 1881. She died in 1894. The Brittania was a good looking pub on the corner of Dorset St and Commercial St. The Ten Bells was opposite, further down Commercial St. This was reportedly Mary's patch and where she meet Joe Barnett. Both pubs were pick up joints for the local unfortunates. Annie Chapman also frequented Ringers.

So lets presume that very ill Mary, who has thrown up in front of Mrs M and is suffering a hangover, feels good enough to pop into Ringers to get a punter to buy her a drink and have a quickie back at hers. If she had seen blotchy man the night before, she might have some money, so why not go home and have a lie down?
Any way supposing she scores, she picks someone up and they go back to hers, not seen by anyone, lucky. Mary lets them in by putting her hand in the broken window to release the spring lock. Once they are inside the door locks. Problem number one for Jack, anyone can let themselves in, high risk. Its a cold morning, anyone can pass into the court pass Mary's window and hear things.He does not know if he can get out without being seen or if anyone is going to visit Mary. Also he has to avoid being covered in blood. He does not know how long he has got. He does not know that Bowyer is coming by to get the rent at 10. 45.
A coat hangs over the window. Its a cold morning so one scenario is Jack lights a fire to keep warm while he strips off his clothes so they wont get bloody. The fire would have been noticed perhaps. You would have smelt it outside. Perhaps the fire was lit last night when entertaining Mr Blotchy and is now out., but Jack can't be seen with blood on on himself. He removes his jacket, perhaps he has an overcoat but it is a problen no where to wash.
He does the deed, miraculously exiting just before Bowyer arrives, with no blood on him. He is not seen by anyone in the court or by Bowyer or by anyone in McCarthy's shop.
I can't believe he would take such risks in the daytime, there is not enough time and unbelievable that no one spotted him.
The key thing for me has always been Bond and Phillips evidence, one can skirt around it but I trust that more than witnesses who are notorously unrealiable.
Rigor started to set in when Bond was examining the body about 2pm. As it was a cold morning rigor might have been delayed, particually if the fire was lit when she was alive. Rigor could not have set in if she was murdered after 10am and her food would not have been partially digested. Bond who had 25 years experience as a police surgeon puts her death between 1 and 2 . Phillips streches it up to 6am because of the body being so cut up but no one is going to say after 10 am
There have been many tests on identification by psycologists and police in which identifcation evidence is unreliable. And once someone gets an idea into their head they reinforce it rather than change there minds. There was a case of a man who was convicted of a crime he had nothing to to with purely on identification [ must check that out] Maurice Lewis description of MK sounds like someone else and Maxwell's description of MK being a quiet woman keeping herself to herself does not sound like MK either.

Miss Marple

[David Orsam]

Miss Marple,

Whether someone would have seen MJK's killer emerge in daylight really depends on how busy that part of Dorset Street was on a Friday morning. If not busy then there would have been no-one around to see him and if very busy then he wouldn't have been noticed in the crowd. If in-between, he still might easily have got away unnoticed if he didn't do anything to draw attention to himself.

You say you can't believe the risks the killer must have taken in killing in a room in the daytime but a murder and mutilations in Mitre Square or Bucks Row during the night with police officers patrolling and/or people on their way to work seems to me to have been much, much, riskier.

The point about the medical evidence has been gone over at length. Rigor Mortis could, in fact, have set in by 2pm if the murder had occurred after 10am and the digestion of the food depends on when MJK last ate, about which there is no evidence. It really doesn't matter how experienced those men were as doctors, they could not accurately estimate the time of death.

I don't think we know enough about MJK to say whether she was well known in the Britannia or in the neighbourhood generally nor whether she was quiet or loud.

[miss marple]

There is plenty of hearsay evidence that MK was a well known prostitute in the area of Spitalfields who frequented The Ten Bells, where she met Joseph Barnett in Commercial St. And had worked the docks.She may have been a plausable liar who embroidered the earlier part of her but plenty of people knew her in the East End. Maria Harvey, Julia Venturney,Lizzie Albrook. Mrs Buki, The McCarthys of Breezer's Hill, the men she had lived with, Dan Barnett, the inhabitants of the court. She does not sound like a woman who 'kept herself to herself. She was known.
John McCarthy said when in Liquor was noisy; otherwise she was a quiet woman.' She was drinking more often in the months before she died and she and Barnett had a blazing row about inviting prostitutes to stay which resulted in the breaking of the windows. Not very quiet. The stress levels increased because Joe had lost his job. She had confided to Maria Harvey how she was sick of the life she was leading and warned her against going on the streets as she had done. Joe to his credit always played down her drinking and did not rubbish her reputation. He seemed to really care for for and perhaps had he been better off and with regular work things might have been different.

MK had been a prostitute in two of the hardest places in Britain.Cardiff was as bad as the East End. Domestic violence, brawling, drunkeness and prostitution, with the women as bad as the men. She survived that and if she did work in a West End Brothel and go to France she must have been very brave to have escaped. If she went with Mrs Buki to pick some dresses from the West End brothel that was a brave but foolhardy act. She could have been beaten up. Not the actions of a woman who keeps herself to herself.
The dark streets were the rippers cover, apart from the brightly lit pubs and the gas lights which gave off about 25 watt light. The alleys and back streets were dark and i think the ripper knew them like the back of his hand and he probably knew the police beats. He could fade into the dark corners wearing his soft soled shoes. Cutting the women in the street only took a few minutes, then he could vanish. Being trapped in a room in daylight covered in blood, when you have spent a fair amount of time butchering a women, is too big a risk to take , when would you come out without someone seeing? He was a nighthawk. Thats my opinion. We all have different takes on the subject.
I believe the doctors.

Miss Marple

[David Orsam]

The only issue about Mary being "known" is whether she was known those people who would have been walking along Dorset Street on the Friday morning and, as to that, there is no evidence. We should definitely not assume that everyone in the neighbourhood knew everyone else.

I understand the thinking behind your belief that MJK was murdered at night: because all the other victims were murdered at night. But in this case we have a witness who testified that she saw MJK alive in the morning - and there is no real evidence to contradict that - so that needs to be taken into consideration.

Ultimately, Miss Marple, whoever that killer was, he (or she) was trapped in a room with MJK, whether it was during the night or during the day. It was clearly a risk at any time. If, as you say, the Ripper knew the streets like the back of his hand and the police beats then perhaps he was also a regular "punter" and a client of Mary's and knew that he was not likely to be disturbed in her room at that time of morning. We just can't say.

[Bridewell]

There have been many tests on identification by psychologists and police in which identifcation evidence is unreliable.

The relevant stated case vis-a-vis identification evidence, relied upon in court today (and regularly cited by defence lawyers) is R v Turnbull and Others 1976.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/43548197/R-v-Turnbull-and-Others-1976-3-All-ER-54

In the case of MJK, however, we are talking about recognition. Both witnesses claimed to know Kelly quite well, so they don't describe her, they name her as the person seen. Whether or not they actually knew her as well as they claim to have done is open to conjecture, but mis-recognition is nowhere near as prevalent as mis-identification.

[Bridewell]

Miss Marple,

Whether someone would have seen MJK's killer emerge in daylight really depends on how busy that part of Dorset Street was on a Friday morning. If not busy then there would have been no-one around to see him and if very busy then he wouldn't have been noticed in the crowd. If in-between, he still might easily have got away unnoticed if he didn't do anything to draw attention to himself.

You say you can't believe the risks the killer must have taken in killing in a room in the daytime but a murder and mutilations in Mitre Square or Bucks Row during the night with police officers patrolling and/or people on their way to work seems to me to have been much, much, riskier.

The point about the medical evidence has been gone over at length. Rigor Mortis could, in fact, have set in by 2pm if the murder had occurred after 10am and the digestion of the food depends on when MJK last ate, about which there is no evidence. It really doesn't matter how experienced those men were as doctors, they could not accurately estimate the time of death.

I don't think we know enough about MJK to say whether she was well known in the Britannia or in the neighbourhood generally nor whether she was quiet or loud.

This pretty much sums up my own view too. Thanks for posting, David.

[miss marple]

Maurice Lewis described a woman who was short about 5,3 dark and stout. When all other descriptions of her are tall, 5.7 fair,stout, hair to her waist, pretty. The body on the bed was about 5,7 tallish looking.
If anyone in the Brittania had seen her in the pub,they would have been called as witnesses, the police made inquiries but no one saw her.
Lewis did not see her, he may have been repeating a story as suggested in this thread.
As for Maxwell, i don't know what her motives are.She may have been covering up for someone or trying to put the police off the scent. It is interesting, she like Hutchinson has rather alot of detail in her story. According to Maxwell, she had known MK spoken to her about twice, yet MK calls her 'Carrie' as if they were intimate buddies. It may add colour to the story but its a bit far fetched.

I am halfway through Tom Westcott's brilliant book The bank Holiday Murders. One of the best whitechapel murder books I have read as it puts a lot things into context, the involvement of lodging house keepers, the kings of Spitalfields, the lies of pearly poll, cover ups and background of terror that stalked these women. It presents new evidence about the murder of Tabrum. If Maxwell lied I would not be at all surprised.

Miss Marple