Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Morris Lewis Revisited

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • curious4
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Curious,

    The Times, 10th November 1888.

    Regards,

    Simon
    Thanks Simon!

    Just puzzled as to why they would close off the streets so early.

    C4

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Curious,

    The Times, 10th November 1888.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • curious4
    replied
    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    Forget 2012.

    In 1888 the procession left the Guildhall shortly after 12.30pm, the roads having been closed to traffic for two and half hours prior to this. It arrived at the Royal Courts of Justice at around 2pm. It then returned to the Guildhall, arriving shortly before 4pm. This is all a matter of record.
    Would you be kind enough to point me in the direction of said record?

    Best wishes
    C4

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by curious4 View Post
    https://lordmayorsshow.london/day/2012/order


    The Lord Mayor's Show was a very long procession, with bands, floats, representatives of the armed forces etc. Would have taken some time to pass (see above for procession order from 2012, and pictures from earlier Shows.)
    Forget 2012.

    In 1888 the procession left the Guildhall shortly after 12.30pm, the roads having been closed to traffic for two and half hours prior to this. It arrived at the Royal Courts of Justice at around 2pm. It then returned to the Guildhall, arriving shortly before 4pm. This is all a matter of record.

    Leave a comment:


  • curious4
    replied
    An practical and historical information site for the Lord Mayor's Show, which happens in the City of London every November.



    The Lord Mayor's Show was a very long procession, with bands, floats, representatives of the armed forces etc. Would have taken some time to pass (see above for procession order from 2012, and pictures from earlier Shows.)

    Best wishes
    C4

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by curious4 View Post
    imes (London)
    Wednesday, 7 November 1888
    LORD MAYOR'S DAY.
    On Friday, from the hour of 10 a.m. until the Lord Mayor's Procession has returned to the Guildhall, and for such longer period as may be found wheeled traffic:- Gresham-street west, St. Martin's-le-Grand, Cheapside, Poultry, Mansion-house-street, Cornhill, Leadenhall-street, Billiter-street, Fenchurch-street, Mincing-lane, Great Tower-street, Eastcheap, King William-street, Queen Victoria-street, Cannon-street, St. Paul's-churchyard, Ludgate-hill, Fleet-street, Victoria-embankment, Queen-street, and King-street. It is also ordered that no procession other than that of the Lord Mayor, nor any organized body of persons, shall on that day be or pass in or along any street or thoroughfare within the City of London and its liberties. The Lord Mayor Elect and Mr. A. J. Newton, Sheriff of London and Middlesex, have provided a necessary, the following streets and approaches thereto will be closed to all treat for 2,000 destitute people at the East-end of London on Lord Mayor's Day. A substantial meat tea will be given them in the Tower Hamlets Mission-hall, of which Mr. F. N. Charrington is honorary superintendent, and it will be followed by an amusing entertainment. Mr. Charrington, writing to us from Great Assembly-hall, Mile-end, says that he will be thankful to receive any further contributions, as arrangements have been made for entertaining 3,000 persons. The Lord Mayor Elect has also, in addition to the benefactions which have been previously announced, arranged special and suitable gifts to the 80 inmates of the City of London Union now in hospital at Margate and to 260 children from the same union now in schools at Hanwell. The total number entertained on the 9th by the new Lord Mayor will exceed 10,000. No condition has been imposed except that the recipients shall be the poor and needy.
    10am is when they closed the roads.

    Leave a comment:


  • curious4
    replied
    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    As I've already mentioned in this thread, the Lord Mayor's procession departed from the Guildhall shortly after 12.30pm. The dinner of roast beef and plum pudding at the Great Assembly Hall in the Mile End Road was in the evening and was only for the poor residing in the workhouses.
    imes (London)
    Wednesday, 7 November 1888
    LORD MAYOR'S DAY.
    On Friday, from the hour of 10 a.m. until the Lord Mayor's Procession has returned to the Guildhall, and for such longer period as may be found necessary, the following streets and approaches thereto will be closed to all wheeled traffic:- Gresham-street west, St. Martin's-le-Grand, Cheapside, Poultry, Mansion-house-street, Cornhill, Leadenhall-street, Billiter-street, Fenchurch-street, Mincing-lane, Great Tower-street, Eastcheap, King William-street, Queen Victoria-street, Cannon-street, St. Paul's-churchyard, Ludgate-hill, Fleet-street, Victoria-embankment, Queen-street, and King-street. It is also ordered that no procession other than that of the Lord Mayor, nor any organized body of persons, shall on that day be or pass in or along any street or thoroughfare within the City of London and its liberties. The Lord Mayor Elect and Mr. A. J. Newton, Sheriff of London and Middlesex, have provided a treat for 2,000 destitute people at the East-end of London on Lord Mayor's Day. A substantial meat tea will be given them in the Tower Hamlets Mission-hall, of which Mr. F. N. Charrington is honorary superintendent, and it will be followed by an amusing entertainment. Mr. Charrington, writing to us from Great Assembly-hall, Mile-end, says that he will be thankful to receive any further contributions, as arrangements have been made for entertaining 3,000 persons. The Lord Mayor Elect has also, in addition to the benefactions which have been previously announced, arranged special and suitable gifts to the 80 inmates of the City of London Union now in hospital at Margate and to 260 children from the same union now in schools at Hanwell. The total number entertained on the 9th by the new Lord Mayor will exceed 10,000. No condition has been imposed except that the recipients shall be the poor and needy.

    Related pages:
    **Lord Mayor's Show
    *******Press Reports:*Times [London] -

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by curious4 View Post
    The problem with ten am is that Mary was planning to see the Lord Mayor's show (with sit-down meal for the poorest) and it began at 10 am I believe. Surely she would have left earlier not to miss anything and to claim a seat at the table? There is a report that she was found earlier, by a neighbour, and this makes sense if she was planning to go with friends. (Can't remember which book this is reported in and still a bit wobbly,on my legs, but it was one of the older ones quoting a relative of the woman who was said to have found her).
    As I've already mentioned in this thread, the Lord Mayor's procession departed from the Guildhall shortly after 12.30pm. The dinner of roast beef and plum pudding at the Great Assembly Hall in the Mile End Road was in the evening and was only for the poor residing in the workhouses.

    Leave a comment:


  • curious4
    replied
    Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
    This pretty much sums up my own view too. Thanks for posting, David.
    The problem with ten am is that Mary was planning to see the Lord Mayor's show (with sit-down meal for the poorest) and it began at 10 am I believe. Surely she would have left earlier not to miss anything and to claim a seat at the table? There is a report that she was found earlier, by a neighbour, and this makes sense if she was planning to go with friends. (Can't remember which book this is reported in and still a bit wobbly,on my legs, but it was one of the older ones quoting a relative of the woman who was said to have found her).

    Best wishes
    C4

    Leave a comment:


  • Pierre
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    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.
    Hi,

    probably not. It is much more likely that Lewis and Maxwell believed that Joe Barnett did it. This explains the tendencies in the sources. But Barnett did not do it.

    Regards, Pierre
    Last edited by Pierre; 05-28-2016, 06:25 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • MysterySinger
    replied
    What do we really know for sure about Morris Lewis in the census records etc (or, for that matter, Caroline Maxwell).

    Leave a comment:


  • miss marple
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Bridewell
    replied
    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bridewell
    replied
    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.

    The document discusses guidelines for judges to follow when a case relies substantially on eyewitness identification evidence that is disputed by the defense. It states that judges should: 1) Warn juries to use caution before convicting based on identification evidence alone. 2) Inform juries about factors that could lead to mistaken identification. 3) Direct juries to closely examine the circumstances in which each identification was made.


    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.
    Last edited by Bridewell; 05-26-2016, 02:45 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X