Morris Lewis Revisited

[Elamarna]

Thanks, GUT, I wasn't intending to!

John,

What do you think the probability is that you will get an answer to your reasonable question?

Indeed what is the possibility that you may get an Answer?



steve

[Pierre]

How can you or I possibly speculate as to what her motivations might have been? If she was bringing a man home then surely the answer is yes. I mean, you think she might have lit a fire in the night when she would have been wrapped up in her bed but not the morning?! It's way too much guessing about what she may or may not have done based on zero evdience.

I agree.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

That is good, David. And therefore it is better if you give clear references.

I think I was very clear in my post Pierre. I said (with highlighting added):

"any inconsistencies in her reported story and the story she told the police and the coroner might just be due to her own memory and changes she made to her story. Just like Prater first said she heard two or three screams of murder in her statement then changed it just one. Remember that? I also give you some examples of inconsistencies between Lewis' statement and her oral evidence in the coroner's court:"

So I was clearly talking about Lewis' statement to the police as opposed to her "interview" with the Evening Post representative. Fine, you misunderstood and thankfully you accept that, but please don't blame me for your misunderstanding.

[Pierre]

Hi David,

I'm certain that in your inimitable style you'll work it out for yourself.

It's all there to be found.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

What is were to be found?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

I think I was very clear in my post Pierre. I said (with highlighting added):

"any inconsistencies in her reported story and the story she told the police and the coroner might just be due to her own memory and changes she made to her story. Just like Prater first said she heard two or three screams of murder in her statement then changed it just one. Remember that? I also give you some examples of inconsistencies between Lewis' statement and her oral evidence in the coroner's court:"

So I was clearly talking about Lewis' statement to the police as opposed to her "interview" with the Evening Post representative. Fine, you misunderstood and thankfully you accept that, but please don't blame me for your misunderstanding.

I did not blame you, David. I said the word "better". That word is just above the category "good" in the ordinal scale. And just one level from "best"!

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

I'm certain that in your inimitable style you'll work it out for yourself.

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.

[Simon Wood]

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

[David Orsam]

I did not blame you, David.

That is most gracious of you Pierre.

[John G]

John,

What do you think the probability is that you will get an answer to your reasonable question?

Indeed what is the possibility that you may get an Answer?



steve

Hi Steve,

I would attach a very low probability to this proposition.

[David Orsam]

No problem. An error made by the police does not erase the errors made by reporters.

No it doesn't but what is the significance of errors made by the police or by reporters? According to your logic, if the police made an error when taking the statement of Lewis then no other statement taken by the police is reliable. Isn't that so?

And it's interesting that you are say that it's an error by the police. While I agree that this is most likely, how do you know that Sarah Lewis herself didn't make a mistake and say "24" when she meant "34" or vice versa? People do jumble their words or numbers sometimes you know.

[John G]

How can you or I possibly speculate as to what her motivations might have been? If she was bringing a man home then surely the answer is yes. I mean, you think she might have lit a fire in the night when she would have been wrapped up in her bed but not the morning?! It's way too much guessing about what she may or may not have done based on zero evdience.

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.

[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

[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).

[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]

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.