Morris Lewis Revisited

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;379948]It's not silly at all Abby and would, on the contrary, have been a very sensible thing for the killer to do, whether you can imagine it or not.

I refer to you Sir Melville Macnaghten's "Days of My Years", page 118, when discussing the Camden Town murder:

'The murderer had probably stripped (a very usual procedure in these cases) before he cut the woman's throat, so that it was not be expected that we should - if an arrest were made - find any traces of blood on his clothes.'

David,

you refer us to Macnaghten. He is using the word "probably" and the phrase "very usual".

What are his data for that statement? Do you actually know the data?

Or do you simply believe everything you read from 1888?

Regards, Pierre

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Simon. Hope you are well.

"I have no problem with a morning murder."

Nor yet I.

Cheers.
LC

A morning murder may point to a different killer ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[lynn cates]

interesting

Hello Simon. Thanks. I must wear a brain monitor. No signal thus far. (heh-heh)

Since a morning killing is possible, the bloke seen speaking with MJK becomes interesting.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Apart from the heart.



Controversial!



Good question, what does any of this have to do with Morris Lewis and the time of Kelly's murder?

It has now been proven that the heart was not missing. I think you must have missed the lengthy debate on this topic.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Simon Wood]

Hi Lynn,

In fine fettle, thanks, despite having to wear a heart monitor.

Yes, I see no problem with Maurice [Morris] Lewis and Mrs Maxwell.

Trust you and Deborah are well.

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

same

Hello Simon. Hope you are well.

"I have no problem with a morning murder."

Nor yet I.

Cheers.
LC

[David Orsam]

No, I think it's feasible that Kelly could have been murdered after 9:00am, however, if she was I think it raises a serious question mark as to whether JtR was her killer.

If that's based on the fact that JTR previously murdered at night and in the streets well fine, although personally I don't think it makes any difference, but please tell me that the "serious question mark" has got nothing to do with the fire.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

I have no problem with a morning murder.

According to The Times, 12th November, Dr. George Bagster Phillips, divisional surgeon of H Division, said that when he was called to the deceased she had been dead some five or six hours.

Dr. Phillips could not have examined the body in Room 13 until 1.30 pm [when the door was broken open], and so, if, as he said, “she had been dead some five or six hours," it put the time of death somewhere between 7.30 and 8.30 am.

Regards,

Simon

[John G]

Man, that is convoluted.

But as there was a lamp in Mitre Square it is quite possible that the killer was operating under worse lighting conditions in the room in Millers Court if the curtains blocked out the light from the room.

So where does that get us? You keep saying something is "unlikely" (based on guesswork) but I only need to show it is possible and then we are back to where we started.

Are you challenging the notion that Kelly could have been murdered after 9:00am or not?

No, I think it's feasible that Kelly could have been murdered after 9:00am, however, if she was I think it raises a serious question mark as to whether JtR was her killer.

[David Orsam]

If it's to be argued that Kelly was murdered by JtR, I think it's important to consider why she was eviscerated with no where near the level of skill that was apparently exhibited at the earlier murders. One such explanation is offered by Trevor, i.e. that the organs of the earlier victims were removed at the mortuary. However, one alternative explanation is that the killer was operating under lighting conditions that were even more appalling than Mitre Square, which is unlikely to be the case if she was murdered after, say, 9:00am, as suggested by both Maxwell's and Lewis's evidence, or indeed, if he had the benefit of the light from the fire.

Man, that is convoluted.

But as there was a lamp in Mitre Square it is quite possible that the killer was operating under worse lighting conditions in the room in Millers Court if the curtains blocked out the light from the room.

So where does that get us? You keep saying something is "unlikely" (based on guesswork) but I only need to show it is possible and then we are back to where we started.

Are you challenging the notion that Kelly could have been murdered after 9:00am or not?

[John G]

But this presumption is based entirely on a guess about the nature of the material (i.e. the curtains) that was covering the windows, something about which there is no evidence and we will never know to what extent it would have blocked out the light in the room.

And I must come back to the question you seem to be avoiding. What is the purpose of this discussion? Are you saying that the existence of the fire in some way points to the murder of Kelly having occurred before 9:00am?

If it's to be argued that Kelly was murdered by JtR, I think it's important to consider why she was eviscerated with no where near the level of skill that was apparently exhibited at the earlier murders. One such explanation is offered by Trevor, i.e. that the organs of the earlier victims were removed at the mortuary. However, one alternative explanation is that the killer was operating under lighting conditions that were even more appalling than Mitre Square, which is unlikely to be the case if she was murdered after, say, 9:00am, as suggested by both Maxwell's and Lewis's evidence, or indeed, if he had the benefit of the light from the fire.

[John G]

John

Well look at it another way, if as I suggest the organs from Eddowes and Chapman were removed at the mortuary by someone with anatomical knowledge i.e medical student,anatomist etc that is where the anatomical knowledge first showed up when they bodise were subjected to a post mortem so that fits.

We know that no organs were removed from Kelly and taken away. So where does that point take us in all of this.

Firstly, if all were one killer then is goes some way to show the organs were not removed by the killer from Eddowes and Chapman. Because with Kelly in effect he could have taken away many different body parts

So, it either tells us that Kelly was murdered by the same killer, or her killing made to look like the others if the latter what was the motive ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hello Trevor,

Yes, I think your argument that the organs were removed at the mortuary cannot be dismissed. Of course, what is frustrating is the sharp divergence of medical opinion, both contemporaneous and modern. Thus, Dr Bond and Dr Biggs seemed to think that no skill was evident in respect of the eviscerations, whereas Dr Calder and Dr Phillips clearly take a contrary view. In fact, Dr Phillips appeared to think that the perpetrator was a surgical expert! See:http://www.casebook.org/press_report...l?printer=true

However, Dr Bond, of course, only attended Kelly's postmortem, and Dr Biggs' conclusions seem to be largely based on the fact that this type of killer isn't normally a skilled expert, and that the medical reports are too vague and ambiguous to be relied upon.

On the other hand, Dr Calder and Philip Harrison clearly carried out a far more systematic review of the evidence, and even carried out there own controlled experiments to recreate the eviscerations.

If Kelly's murderer was not JtR, but intended to implicate the aforementioned individual, I would have expected far less carnage, perhaps something akin to Ellen Bury's or Alice Mackenzie's murder. I mean, whatever the answer there can be little doubt that Kelly's murderer was a seriously disturbed individual. And, as you say, what would be the motive?

[David Orsam]

We know that no organs were removed from Kelly and taken away.

Apart from the heart.

it either tells us that Kelly was murdered by the same killer

Controversial!

So where does that point take us in all of this.

Good question, what does any of this have to do with Morris Lewis and the time of Kelly's murder?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Yes, I take your point. And, although I think Kelly was murdered by JtR, I would have to acknowledge that it's not easy to explain the total lack of skill that was evident, especially when contrasted with the earlier murders of Chapman and Eddowes.

That said, whoever murdered Kelly was clearly an extremely disturbed individual-obviously not just someone who fancied being Jack the Ripper for the day-and the chances of two such individuals emerging from the same small district, or at least operating in the same district, during the same time period, must surely be very remote.

John

Well look at it another way, if as I suggest the organs from Eddowes and Chapman were removed at the mortuary by someone with anatomical knowledge i.e medical student,anatomist etc that is where the anatomical knowledge first showed up when they bodise were subjected to a post mortem so that fits.

We know that no organs were removed from Kelly and taken away. So where does that point take us in all of this.

Firstly, if all were one killer then is goes some way to show the organs were not removed by the killer from Eddowes and Chapman. Because with Kelly in effect he could have taken away many different body parts

So, it either tells us that Kelly was murdered by the same killer, or her killing made to look like the others if the latter what was the motive ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

when, presumably, there was sufficient light to see, .

But this presumption is based entirely on a guess about the nature of the material (i.e. the curtains) that was covering the windows, something about which there is no evidence and we will never know to what extent it would have blocked out the light in the room.

And I must come back to the question you seem to be avoiding. What is the purpose of this discussion? Are you saying that the existence of the fire in some way points to the murder of Kelly having occurred before 9:00am?