Morris Lewis Revisited

[David Orsam]

Excellent, I do so like a semantics argument. Firstly, in order to address the point you've made we would need to define what we mean by "weight of evidence".
.....

And that's why I say you set an impossible stabdard.

There's absolutely no semantics involved here at all John and "we" don't need to define what "we" mean by the "weight of evidence". The term "weight of evidence" was introduced into this thread by you. I assume you knew what you meant by it at the time you wrote it. I simply asked you what evidence you were referring to, requesting, at the same time, for you not to post speculation or argument. In response, you didn't post any evidence. Either there is evidence or there isn't. If there is, please post it. If not, then you obviously didn't mean to say "weight of evidence".

[Abby Normal]

There's absolutely no semantics involved here at all John and "we" don't need to define what "we" mean by the "weight of evidence". The term "weight of evidence" was introduced into this thread by you. I assume you knew what you meant by it at the time you wrote it. I simply asked you what evidence you were referring to, requesting, at the same time, for you not to post speculation or argument. In response, you didn't post any evidence. Either there is evidence or there isn't. If there is, please post it. If not, then you obviously didn't mean to say "weight of evidence".

Hi David
I would say the corroborated cries of murder of a woman nearby around 4:00 am and also that She had been seen with an unknown man ENTERING her place, And therefore whos alibi couldn't be established in the night time frame (two actually).

Both bits of info above are evidence, but not very weighty I would agree.

[David Orsam]

Hi David
I would say the corroborated cries of murder of a woman nearby around 4:00 am and also that She had been seen with an unknown man ENTERING her place, And therefore whos alibi couldn't be established in the night time frame (two actually).

Both bits of info above are evidence, but not very weighty I would agree.

Yes but, as far as I understand him, I don't think John places any reliance on the cry on the murder (although I could be wrong, which is why I was asking him) and the evidence of a man entering a prostitute's house at 2am is not evidence of time of death.

[John G]

Hi Abby,

The way I look at it is this: Is there any evidence that Kelly was alive at 9:00am? Answer: Yes. Is there any evidence which contradicts the evidence that Kelly was alive at 9:00am. Answer: No.

Therefore while I (obviously) do not know when Kelly was murdered, and I'd even be reluctant to put it in terms of balance of probabilities, I don't feel able to dismiss the possibility that the murder occurred after 9:00am as some people, for reasons which remain entirely unknown to me, feel able to do.

Hello David,

I've been giving this issue some thought over the past few weeks, and I've reluctantly concluded that, contrary to my previous position, you are correct. I say reluctantly based on the realization that this represents a rare, but obvious, example of volte face for me. Mind you, at least it suggests I'm prepared to be objective and not totally impervious to contrary arguments!

Frankly, I can see no reason why Kelly couldn't have been alive after 9:00am. The original estimates of time of death clearly cannot be relied upon, and I see no good reason why the testimony of Caroline Maxwell-or even for that matter Morris Lewis-should be given less weight than that of other witnesses, i.e. Cox, Hutchinson, whose testimonies, for different reasons, are at least as questionable.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;379612]

Frankly, I can see no reason why Kelly couldn't have been alive after 9:00am.

I can.

1) Poor prostitutes in Spitalfields could not afford to burn clothes.

2) The killer had no reason to light a large fire in the grate in the light of the morning.

3) Oh, murder!

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Hello David,

I've been giving this issue some thought over the past few weeks, and I've reluctantly concluded that, contrary to my previous position, you are correct.

Very good. A perfectly respectable opinion to adopt!

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;379617]

I can.

1) Poor prostitutes in Spitalfields could not afford to burn clothes.

2) The killer had no reason to light a large fire in the grate in the light of the morning.

3) Oh, murder!

Regards, Pierre

Hello Pierre,

Yes, the points you make are all valid, but I consider none of them to be decisive. Thus, I agree Kelly would have been crazy to burn her own clothes, but we don't know that it was Kelly's clothes that were burnt. For instance, they could have belonged to Marie Harvey, and Kelly may have had a motive to burn her clothes.

Nor do we know why the fire was lit. If light was the reason, and assuming she was killed by JtR, then the murderer had previously demonstrated that he could effectively mutilate victims in appalling lighting conditions. And lighting a fire in these circumstances may have been counterproductive, i.e. it might draw attention to his activities.

As for cries of "oh murder", they were considered common place in the neighbourhood, and it couldn't be satisfactorily determined where the crimes emanated from. Moreover, it would be contrary to JtR's MO of taking victims by surprise, giving them no opportunity to cry out or resist. In fact, it's even possible Kelly was asleep when attacked, which is what Dr Bond surmised, based on the fact that the cuts on the bedsheet suggested she'd pulled it up over her neck, i.e. as one might do after retiring to bed.

[David Orsam]

1) Poor prostitutes in Spitalfields could not afford to burn clothes.

Something which does not tell us whether or not Kelly was alive after 9:00am.

2) The killer had no reason to light a large fire in the grate in the light of the morning.

Tell us Pierre: how did "the light of the morning" (on a wet, overcast morning) penetrate the curtains or other material that was covering the window of room 13 Millers Court in order to create sufficient light in the room so that the killer did not require an artificial light source?

And also do tell us how you can be certain that the killer did not light the fire to (a) keep warm and/or (b) burn something he or she wanted to burn.

3) Oh, murder!

We have the uncontradicted and unchallenged evidence of Elizabeth Prater in no less than two official sources, one of them given on oath, that a cry of "Oh Murder!" was "nothing uncommon" and was frequently heard around the area of Millers Court.

Further, even you do not suggest that the cry of "Oh murder!" was made by Kelly at the time of her murder.

I can.

So it turns out that you can't.

[Pierre]

QUOTE=John G;379634][QUOTE=Pierre;379617]

Hello Pierre,

Yes, the points you make are all valid, but I consider none of them to be decisive. Thus, I agree Kelly would have been crazy to burn her own clothes, but we don't know that it was Kelly's clothes that were burnt. For instance, they could have belonged to Marie Harvey, and Kelly may have had a motive to burn her clothes.

Nor do we know why the fire was lit. If light was the reason, and assuming she was killed by JtR, then the murderer had previously demonstrated that he could effectively mutilate victims in appalling lighting conditions. And lighting a fire in these circumstances may have been counterproductive, i.e. it might draw attention to his activities.

As for cries of "oh murder", they were considered common place in the neighbourhood,

",...they were considered common place in the neighbourhood,..."

No, you are making the same old mistakes as everyone else who says that. The right sentence here is:

",...they were considered common place in the head of Prater,..."

or if you use source criticism:

",...they were considered common place according to the talk of Prater,..."

So Prater is the source and the only source. And you can not generalize from one source to "they were considered....in the neighbourhood". And especially not in this case, since there was a murder in the house where Prater stayed and she heard the cry on the same night.

and it couldn't be satisfactorily determined where the crimes emanated from.

Sarah Lewis, original inquest papers:

"The sound seemed to come from the direction of deceaseds room".

Moreover, it would be contrary to JtR's MO of taking victims by surprise, giving them no opportunity to cry out or resist. In fact, it's even possible Kelly was asleep when attacked, which is what Dr Bond surmised, based on the fact that the cuts on the bedsheet suggested she'd pulled it up over her neck, i.e. as one might do after retiring to bed.

Why do you think the scream came from Kelly?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

No, you are making the same old mistakes as everyone else who says that. The right sentence here is:

",...they were considered common place in the head of Prater,..."

or if you use source criticism:

",...they were considered common place according to the talk of Prater,..."

Well it's not really accurate to describe it as "the talk of Prater" is it? It wasn't gossip in the marketplace. It was her sworn evidence under oath. More than that, her uncontradicted and unchallenged sworn evidence under oath.

She lived in Dorset Street/Millers Court in 1888 and you didn't. So any attempt to challenge her evidence is nothing more than a modern day opinion - a theory. Obviously, Pierre, as a Ripperologist you are perfectly entitled to hold such an opinion, and develop such a theory, but you cannot reasonably say it is conclusive.

[David Orsam]

Sarah Lewis, original inquest papers:

"The sound seemed to come from the direction of deceaseds room".

Why do you think the scream came from Kelly?

I love the way, Pierre, that you have transformed the evidence of a sound seeming to come from the direction of Kelly's room to that sound actually having come from Kelly.

Unfortunately Sarah Lewis was a human being, with human hearing, not a bat.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;379659]QUOTE=John G;379634]

Hello Pierre,

Yes, the points you make are all valid, but I consider none of them to be decisive. Thus, I agree Kelly would have been crazy to burn her own clothes, but we don't know that it was Kelly's clothes that were burnt. For instance, they could have belonged to Marie Harvey, and Kelly may have had a motive to burn her clothes.

Nor do we know why the fire was lit. If light was the reason, and assuming she was killed by JtR, then the murderer had previously demonstrated that he could effectively mutilate victims in appalling lighting conditions. And lighting a fire in these circumstances may have been counterproductive, i.e. it might draw attention to his activities.



",...they were considered common place in the neighbourhood,..."

No, you are making the same old mistakes as everyone else who says that. The right sentence here is:

",...they were considered common place in the head of Prater,..."

or if you use source criticism:

",...they were considered common place according to the talk of Prater,..."

So Prater is the source and the only source. And you can not generalize from one source to "they were considered....in the neighbourhood". And especially not in this case, since there was a murder in the house where Prater stayed and she heard the cry on the same night.



Sarah Lewis, original inquest papers:

"The sound seemed to come from the direction of deceaseds room".



Why do you think the scream came from Kelly?

Regards, Pierre

Based upon your own logic Lewis is the only source for the proposition that the cries appeared to come from the direction of Kelly's room, and therefore this source material cannot be relied upon.

Do you think it was the killer who screamed? If so, on what basis would you argue this point? Moreover, Sarah Lewis, a witness you've previously relied on, said that she heard "a scream like that of a young woman."

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=John G;379668]

QUOTE=John G;379634]

Based upon your own logic Lewis is the only source for the proposition that the cries appeared to come from the direction of Kelly's room, and therefore this source material cannot be relied upon.

Do you think it was the killer who screamed? If so, on what basis would you argue this point? Moreover, Sarah Lewis, a witness you've previously relied on, said that she heard "a scream like that of a young woman."

I Beleive Pierre doesn't think it was Kelly who screamed but another woman who found her body and that the ripper intended this to happen.

I asked him if it was prater and if not who he thought it was and of course he never said.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;379680]

I Beleive Pierre doesn't think it was Kelly who screamed but another woman who found her body and that the ripper intended this to happen.

I asked him if it was prater and if not who he thought it was and of course he never said.

Hi Abby,

Thanks. If that is what Pierre believes it raises a question: why did the person he thinks found the body not come forward? However, as you suggest, Pierre seems reluctant to answer certain questions at the moment.

I can understand the argument that, in respect of Kelly, the killer posed the body, and committed extensive mutilations for shock value, but that objective would have been achieved regardless of who discovered, and subsequently viewed, the body. If he considers it was a particular neighbour of Kelly he intended to shock then he must demonstrate a viable connection between that individual and the killer. He must also explain how the killer knew that that particular individual would be the one to discover the body.

[Semper_Eadem]

I can.

1) Poor prostitutes in Spitalfields could not afford to burn clothes.

2) The killer had no reason to light a large fire in the grate in the light of the morning.

3) Oh, murder!

Regards, Pierre

I can too. There was no valid reason to light a fire but that does not mean that the Killer didn't. He probably needed more light for his grizzly dissection work.