Morris Lewis Revisited

[GUT]

You are the one who is confused Pierre, showing you know nothing about how a newspaper was put together in 1888.

The Evening Post report in its Special Edition of 9 November 1888 was a mixture of Agency reports (including one from the Press Association) and information obtained from its own representative in Whitechapel. So picking out inconsistencies in the report as a whole and concluding from those inconsistencies that "The journalist is confused" simply makes you look ridiculous, especially for someone who purports to be a "historian".

Funny isn't it the "Great Historian" know nought about historical sources.

[John G]

Hi David,

I think Abby makes a very good point about the fire. I agree it could have been lit for heat rather than light, however, this would be even more likely if Kelly was killed at night rather than, say, after 10:00am when it would presumably have been warmer.

You suggest that the killer may have mutilated Kelly whilst naked, i.e. to avoid getting covered in blood. However, if she was killed by JtR I just don't see him as being that organized. Thus, in the previous murders he clearly didn't take similar precautions-implying that he was unconcerned about the risk- even though Chapman may well have been murdered at a time when the neighbourhood would presumably have been busy with people leaving for work, and at a time when it was relatively light, which would have greatly increased the probability that someone would have noticed the blood and gore.

[Pierre]

You are the one who is confused Pierre, showing you know nothing about how a newspaper was put together in 1888.

The Evening Post report in its Special Edition of 9 November 1888 was a mixture of Agency reports (including one from the Press Association) and information obtained from its own representative in Whitechapel. So picking out inconsistencies in the report as a whole and concluding from those inconsistencies that "The journalist is confused" simply makes you look ridiculous, especially for someone who purports to be a "historian".

No, David. You do not understand what I am saying.

But since you claim to understand more than i do, perhaps you are able to answer two simple questions?

1) Is the newspaper reporter (referred to as their representative) in the article the same person who created the statement about the "young man" McCarthy and his mother opening the front door and seeing a body "lying in the passage"?

2) Is he also the same person who came up with the statement of Kelly having been seen in a public-house, drinking with a man?

[David Orsam]

I think Abby makes a very good point about the fire.

Abby didn't make any points in a post which contained only questions.

Let me be crystal clear that I was only saying it is equally possible that it was for heat as much as light. The windows of Mary's room were blocked with curtains and, with no light source in the room, during a gloomy morning, a fire would have been useful for light too in what must have been a dark room. In other words, the existence of the fire in no way assists us as to the time of death.

[David Orsam]

No, David. You do not understand what I am saying.

But since you claim to understand more than i do, perhaps you are able to answer two simple questions?

1) Is the newspaper reporter (referred to as their representative) in the article the same person who created the statement about the "young man" McCarthy and his mother opening the front door and seeing a body "lying in the passage"?

2) Is he also the same person who came up with the statement of Kelly having been seen in a public-house, drinking with a man?

I understand what you are saying perfectly well, Pierre, as the following answers to your questions should make clear to you:

1. No, the source for that was a Press Association report (the one I have referred to as the third report of 9 November).

2. I wouldn't have used the phrase "came up with" myself but, yes, the Evening Post representative was the source for the sentence: "Two women aver that they saw her in a public-house, drinking with a man."

[Pierre]

You are wrong, David.

You are the one who is confused Pierre, showing you know nothing about how a newspaper was put together in 1888.

The Evening Post report in its Special Edition of 9 November 1888 was a mixture of Agency reports (including one from the Press Association) and information obtained from its own representative in Whitechapel. So picking out inconsistencies in the report as a whole and concluding from those inconsistencies that "The journalist is confused" simply makes you look ridiculous, especially for someone who purports to be a "historian".

David,

You are absolutely wrong when you are saying ”here we have an independent confirmation from an Evening Post reporter” and "We now have confirmation that "two women" claimed to have seen Kelly drinking in a public house with a man at around 10am."

The journalist(s) of the London Evening Post´s Special Edition is guessing and getting events as well as people mixed up.

So this source is not reliable and you can therefore not draw the conclusion of ”indenpendent confirmation”.

Actually, there are terrible mistakes in this source.

Sara Lewis is mistaken for being a woman called ”Kennedy.” The reporter have made the mistake from a mishearing of ”Keyler´s”.

The reporter has got people and relations as well as names wrong. Here you have my data for it, the Evening Post writings are being compared to (without comments) the original police investigation source and the original inquest source:

London Eveing Post:

”Our representative has interviewed a woman named Kennedy, who was on the night of the murder staying with her parents at a house situated in the court immediately opposite the room in which the body of Mary Kelly was found. She states that about three o’clock on Friday morning she entered Dorset-street on her way to her parents’ house,”

POLICE INVESTIGATION WITH STATEMENT OF SARAH LEWIS:

”Between 2 and 3 o´clock this morning I came to stop with the Keyler´s, at No 2 Miller Court...”

London Evening Post:

”She noticed three persons at the corner of the street, near the Britannia public-house. There was a man - a young man, respectably dressed, and with a dark moustache – talking to a woman whom she did not know, and also a female...”

POLICE INVESTIGATION WITH STATMENT OF SARAH LEWIS:

”when I came up the Court there was a man standing over againat at the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset Street [”talking to a female” - deleted]

London Evening Post:

”She states that she did not retire to rest immediately she reached her parents’ abode, but sat up, and between half-past three and a quarter to four she heard a cry of “Murder!” in a woman’s voice proceed from the direction in which Mary Kelly’s room was situated.”

INQUEST STATEMENT OF SARAH LEWIS:

”I went to Mrs [”Kelsey`s” - deleted] Keyler´s I was awake all night in a chair I dozed I heard no noinse I woke up at about half past three – I sat awake till nearly five – a little before 4 I heard a female voice shout loudly one Murder! The sound seemed to come from the direction of deceaseds room...”

”London Evening Post:

As the cry was not repeated, she took no further notice of the circumstances until this morning,”

INQUEST STATEMENT OF SARAH LEWIS:

”I took no notice of it”

London Evening Post:

”She has since supplemented that statement by the following; “On Wednesday evening, about eight o’clock, me and my sister were in the neighbourhood of the Bethnal Green-road, when we were accosted by a very suspicious man,...”

”He invited me to accompany him into a lonely spot “as he was known about here, and there was a policeman looking at him.” She asserts that no policeman was in sight. He made several strange remarks and appeared to be agitated.

”He was very white in the face and made every endeavour to prevent them “looking him straight in the face.”

”He carried a black bag.”

INQUEST STATEMENT OF SARAH LEWIS:

”About Wednesday night at 8 o`clock I was going along Bethnal Green Road along with another female and a Gentleman passed us he turned back & spoke to us, he asked us to follow him, and asked one of us he did not mind which we refused, he went away, and came back & said if we would follow him he would treat us _ he asked us to go down a passage –.

”..he was short, paled faced,”

”... he had a bag...”

Conclusion: It is 100 percent certain that the reporter of the London Evening post has talked to Sarah Lewis without getting her name right. It is also 100 percent certain that the reporter and/or the journalist writing in the Evening Post has used his imagination together with the statements of Sara Lewis and has made very grave mistakes which you can see in the article.

You are therefore absolutely wrong when you are saying ”here we have an independent confirmation from an Evening Post reporter”,

So we can NOT conclude from this source that, as you say,: "We now have confirmation that "two women" claimed to have seen Kelly drinking in a public house with a man at around 10am."

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Actually, there are terrible mistakes in this source.

Sara Lewis is mistaken for being a woman called ”Kennedy.” The reporter have made the mistake from a mishearing of ”Keyler´s”.

The reporter has got people and relations as well as names wrong. Here you have my data for it, the Evening Post writings are being compared to (without comments) the original police investigation source and the original inquest source:

.....

Conclusion: It is 100 percent certain that the reporter of the London Evening post has talked to Sarah Lewis without getting her name right. It is also 100 percent certain that the reporter and/or the journalist writing in the Evening Post has used his imagination together with the statements of Sara Lewis and has made very grave mistakes which you can see in the article.

You are therefore absolutely wrong when you are saying ”here we have an independent confirmation from an Evening Post reporter”

Please don't write nonsense to me, Pierre, under the heading of "You are wrong, David".

Firstly, the interview with Mrs Kennedy comes from the Evening Post of 10 November whereas the story about Kelly drinking in a public house was in the Evening Post of 9 November, so you are comparing stories from newspapers of different dates and we don't even know if we are talking about the same journalist.

Secondly, and in any event, your lack of knowledge and reading about the Ripper crimes lets you down again. Chris Scott, in a Ripperologist article of August 2013 (Rip 133), established that Sarah Lewis was born Sarah Jane Henrietta Lewis. Now all references to Kennedy are to "Mrs Kennedy".

Tell me Pierre, what happens to a woman's surname when she gets married? You do know it usually changes to the husband's name, right? So immediately we can see that Miss Lewis and Mrs Kennedy can be one and the same person. You will note that Sarah Lewis said in her statement that she stopped with the Keylers in Millers Court because "I had had a few words with my husband". So Sarah Lewis was married and, undoubtedly, her surname was no longer Lewis but her husband's name.

Now, Chris Scott established that Sarah Lewis was living with (but had not, in fact, officially married) a man named Joseph Gotheimer in 1888. So, as his common law wife, she could have been calling herself "Mrs Gotheimer". But an English woman speaking to journalists might not have wanted to call herself by a foreign sounding name yet she still wanted to have the respectability attached to the title of "Mrs" so, in my opinion, she called herself "Mrs Kennedy."

It's nothing to do with the journalist not hearing what she said or confusing Kennedy with "Keyler".

Thirdly, 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:

1. Address

Statement: "No 34 Great Pearl Street"
Oral Evidence: "I live at 24 Great Powell Street"

2. Time

Statement: "Between 2 and 3 o'clock"
Oral Evidence (becomes more precise): "half past 2 on Friday morning...I know the time by having looked at Spitalfields Church Close as I passed it"

3. Suspicious Man Accosted Her While With Another Female

Statement: "on Wednesday evening last at Bethnal Green"
Oral Evidence: "On the Friday morning....in Commercial Street near Mr Ringers Public House"

So any inconsistencies in the Lewis/Kennedy story might just be the fault of the witness rather than the reporter.

One more thing; please don't continually waste my time Pierre.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;375995]

Please don't write nonsense to me, Pierre, under the heading of "You are wrong, David".

Firstly, the interview with Mrs Kennedy comes from the Evening Post of 10 November whereas the story about Kelly drinking in a public house was in the Evening Post of 9 November, so you are comparing stories from newspapers of different dates and we don't even know if we are talking about the same journalist.

That is not the point, David. The provenience, i.e. the place of the origin for the statements, is the reporter(s) of the London Evening Post and/or their journalist(s) of the articles.

A big problem here is you actually have no idea about who reported the story with all the mistakes in it and who wrote the article and who put together the special edition with all its final mistakes in it.

If you want to learn more about this type of problem, here is an interesting part of a lecture about source criticism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO_lS0QcZxs

So since there are serious problems with the statements of this newspaper as to the "facts" (which they try to establish but can not) about the murder of Kelly, you can NOT draw the conclusion from this newspaper that " We now have confirmation that "two women" claimed to have seen Kelly drinking in a public house with a man at around 10am."

Secondly, and in any event, your lack of knowledge and reading about the Ripper crimes lets you down again. Chris Scott, in a Ripperologist article of August 2013 (Rip 133), established that Sarah Lewis was born Sarah Jane Henrietta Lewis. Now all references to Kennedy are to "Mrs Kennedy".

There is no analyse of the concept of "Kennedy" in this article, so why do you refer to it?

Tell me Pierre, what happens to a woman's surname when she gets married? You do know it usually changes to the husband's name, right? So immediately we can see that Miss Lewis and Mrs Kennedy can be one and the same person. You will note that Sarah Lewis said in her statement that she stopped with the Keylers in Millers Court because "I had had a few words with my husband". So Sarah Lewis was married and, undoubtedly, her surname was no longer Lewis but her husband's name.

What are the statements above? Are they coming from your own imagination, David?

If you feel that you must now defend the Evening News, do take it all the way and explain all the other mistakes they made when they tried to describe and interpret the events and the statements people made 9 November around Dorset Street!

Now, Chris Scott established that Sarah Lewis was living with (but had not, in fact, officially married) a man named Joseph Gotheimer in 1888. So, as his common law wife, she could have been calling herself "Mrs Gotheimer". But an English woman speaking to journalists might not have wanted to call herself by a foreign sounding name yet she still wanted to have the respectability attached to the title of "Mrs" so, in my opinion, she called herself "Mrs Kennedy."

OK! There it is! "In your opinion", i.e. in your imagination.

How much of everything you write, David, is from your imagination? Since you do not manage source criticism.

It's nothing to do with the journalist not hearing what she said or confusing Kennedy with "Keyler".

Yes, it has. A I will show you in a moment.

But firstly, David: You are truly a good example of social bias. You do not even let the source kick back! You make of the source what you wish it to be. And the point is, that in this case it is obvious that the sources kick back.

Thirdly, 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 see the words "might be". And I see you are mixing the newspaper articles discussed here with other original sources.

I also give you some examples of inconsistencies between Lewis' statement and her oral evidence in the coroner's court:

OK. Let´s see!

1. Address

Statement: "No 34 Great Pearl Street"
Oral Evidence: "I live at 24 Great Powell Street"

Yes. Here you see the same acoustical problem in the Evening News 12 November, as on the 10th November. "Powell" is interpreted as "Pearl". So, over time, the problem remains in the Evening News. It is not a reliable source, as I told you. And here, you also see my data for the hypothesis that the reporter misheard "Keylers" and interpreted it as "Kennedy".

But: from where do you have "34"? That is your own incorrect interpretation of "24" - is it not? I use your own source for your statement, which, by the way, has other spelling mistakes in it: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8685)

2. Time

Statement: "Between 2 and 3 o'clock"
Oral Evidence (becomes more precise): "half past 2 on Friday morning...I know the time by having looked at Spitalfields Church Close as I passed it"

3. Suspicious Man Accosted Her While With Another Female

Statement: "on Wednesday evening last at Bethnal Green"
Oral Evidence: "On the Friday morning....in Commercial Street near Mr Ringers Public House"

So any inconsistencies in the Lewis/Kennedy story might just be the fault of the witness rather than the reporter.

It is very good that you highlight the problem that there are even more mistakes in the statements of the Evening News. Thank you.

I see that our discussion has helped you to become a better source criticist and that you are in a learning process. But you are still not finished with your learning process, since you have made comparisons but not managed to reach the correct conclusion, which is:

There is no evidence for inconsistencies between the Lewis-statements in the police investigation and the inquest. In the inquest source you also find additions to her statements, and they are not in conflict with the police investigation source.

Make a source critical analysis of these two sources and you can even see that the "female" she is talking about in the police investigation is the same female she is talking about in the inquest source: "another young man with a woman passed along": that is the addition for ["talking to a female - deleted] in the police investigation source.

So my conclusion is that: There is no evidence that Sarah Lewis memory problems. But the people who did produce the Special Edition had both hearing problems and problems of understanding.

And, as everybody can see here, your first conclusion about an "independent confirmation" is wrong, your interpretations and conclusions about Sarah Lewis as a witness is wrong and so are your interpretations and conclusions about the sources.

I do not mean to say that you have done this on purpose, because I believe that you are an honest person trying to do your best. But your bias and lack of understanding of source criticism is making it hard for you.

One more thing; please don't continually waste my time Pierre.

School is not out yet, David. And please do not bite the hand that is teaching you. I understand that it feels uncomfortable for you to revise both your "Morris revisited" thread and your knowledge about source criticism, but I promise you that you will be a much more reliable history teller when you are finished with your education.

Kind regards, Pierre

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;376046]

That is not the point, David. The provenience, i.e. the place of the origin for the statements, is the reporter(s) of the London Evening Post and/or their journalist(s) of the articles.

A big problem here is you actually have no idea about who reported the story with all the mistakes in it and who wrote the article and who put together the special edition with all its final mistakes in it.

If you want to learn more about this type of problem, here is an interesting part of a lecture about source criticism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO_lS0QcZxs

So since there are serious problems with the statements of this newspaper as to the "facts" (which they try to establish but can not) about the murder of Kelly, you can NOT draw the conclusion from this newspaper that " We now have confirmation that "two women" claimed to have seen Kelly drinking in a public house with a man at around 10am."



There is no analyse of the concept of "Kennedy" in this article, so why do you refer to it?



What are the statements above? Are they coming from your own imagination, David?

If you feel that you must now defend the Evening News, do take it all the way and explain all the other mistakes they made when they tried to describe and interpret the events and the statements people made 9 November around Dorset Street!



OK! There it is! "In your opinion", i.e. in your imagination.

How much of everything you write, David, is from your imagination? Since you do not manage source criticism.



Yes, it has. A I will show you in a moment.

But firstly, David: You are truly a good example of social bias. You do not even let the source kick back! You make of the source what you wish it to be. And the point is, that in this case it is obvious that the sources kick back.



I see the words "might be". And I see you are mixing the newspaper articles discussed here with other original sources.



OK. Let´s see!

1. Address



Yes. Here you see the same acoustical problem in the Evening News 12 November, as on the 10th November. "Powell" is interpreted as "Pearl". So, over time, the problem remains in the Evening News. It is not a reliable source, as I told you. And here, you also see my data for the hypothesis that the reporter misheard "Keylers" and interpreted it as "Kennedy".

But: from where do you have "34"? That is your own incorrect interpretation of "24" - is it not? I use your own source for your statement, which, by the way, has other spelling mistakes in it: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8685)

It is very good that you highlight the problem that there are even more mistakes in the statements of the Evening News. Thank you.

I see that our discussion has helped you to become a better source criticist and that you are in a learning process. But you are still not finished with your learning process, since you have made comparisons but not managed to reach the correct conclusion, which is:

There is no evidence for inconsistencies between the Lewis-statements in the police investigation and the inquest. In the inquest source you also find additions to her statements, and they are not in conflict with the police investigation source.

Make a source critical analysis of these two sources and you can even see that the "female" she is talking about in the police investigation is the same female she is talking about in the inquest source: "another young man with a woman passed along": that is the addition for ["talking to a female - deleted] in the police investigation source.

So my conclusion is that: There is no evidence that Sarah Lewis memory problems. But the people who did produce the Special Edition had both hearing problems and problems of understanding.

And, as everybody can see here, your first conclusion about an "independent confirmation" is wrong, your interpretations and conclusions about Sarah Lewis as a witness is wrong and so are your interpretations and conclusions about the sources.

I do not mean to say that you have done this on purpose, because I believe that you are an honest person trying to do your best. But your bias and lack of understanding of source criticism is making it hard for you.



School is not out yet, David. And please do not bite the hand that is teaching you. I understand that it feels uncomfortable for you to revise both your "Morris revisited" thread and your knowledge about source criticism, but I promise you that you will be a much more reliable history teller when you are finished with your education.

Kind regards, Pierre

Pierre,

You are once again, by necessary implication, making grandiose statements in respect of your academic abilities, which carries the risk of disrupting yet another thread. This is getting somewhat tiresome, therefore, can I impose on you by requesting, once again, that you submit evidence of your credentials? For instance, academic texts you have written and peer-reviewed articles you've had accepted. If you fail to comply I think we will all be able to draw obvious inferences.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby, there's got to be a chance that the killer mutilated Kelly while naked so as to keep blood off his clothes. Abberline assumed the clothing was burnt for the purposes of light but it could equally have been for heat. If the murder was committed some time after 10:00am then, yes, assuming that Kelly didn't do it herself to keep warm during the night, it must have been done some time after 10:00am.

Thanks David.

or he might have just tossed em in there for spite.

[David Orsam]

But: from where do you have "34"? That is your own incorrect interpretation of "24" - is it not? I use your own source for your statement, which, by the way, has other spelling mistakes in it: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8685)

It is very good that you highlight the problem that there are even more mistakes in the statements of the Evening News. Thank you.

Before I respond to the body of your post Pierre, I will just correct your latest misunderstanding.

If you care to look at the statement that Sarah Lewis gave to the police on 9 November 1888, which you will find in Evans & Skinner, you will see that her address is stated as 34 Great Pearl Street whereas in her oral evidence it was recorded as 24 Great Powell Street.

So the difference to which I was alluding was between her police statement and her oral evidence. Both primary sources and inconsistent with each other. How do you compute that Pierre?

Similarly, in her police statement of 9 November she stated that when she was in company with another female she was accosted by a suspicious man at Bethnal Green "on Wednesday evening last". This corresponds exactly with the statement published in the Evening Post on 10 November, thus confirming the accuracy of the Evening Post report. In her oral evidence, however, she said this incident occurred on "Friday morning" not in Bethnal Green but in Whitechapel.

My point was that any inconsistencies between what she told the journalist on 10 November and her evidence in court could be due entirely to her own mistakes of recollection, not any mistakes on behalf of the journalist who, in any case, in respect of the second statement published in the Evening Post, is not necessarily the same person who is said to have interviewed her.

[John G]

Abby didn't make any points in a post which contained only questions.

Let me be crystal clear that I was only saying it is equally possible that it was for heat as much as light. The windows of Mary's room were blocked with curtains and, with no light source in the room, during a gloomy morning, a fire would have been useful for light too in what must have been a dark room. In other words, the existence of the fire in no way assists us as to the time of death.

Hello David,

But if Kelly was murdered by JtR, surely he wouldn't have needed to expend time and effort on starting a fire for purposes of light. Thus, Eddowes was successfully eviscerated, with both the kidney and uterus removed, in what would have been appalling lighting conditions, i.e. the darkest part of Mitre Square. This clearly indicates an assailant for whom poor lighting would be no major obstacle.

And why the need for heat? Wouldn't it have been cold when the other victims were killed? Of course, you therorize that the killer may have stripped naked to avoid getting blood on himself-the police proposed the same unconvincing theory in the famous Wallace murder case-but where's the evidence that JtR demonstrated that level of organization? He certainly didn't seem concerned about this issue in the previous murders. And why would he? After all, it wouldn't be uncommon in the locality for butchers and slaughtermen to be wandering around the neighbourhood with their clothes stained in blood. In fact, as I've noted on other threads, in more modern times Robert Napper successfully avoided attracting attention to himself when he stabbed Rachel Nickell 49 times, in a public park, in broad daylight.

Therefore the risks to JtR, in nineteenth century Whitechapel, would have been minimal. And he knew it.

[David Orsam]

That is not the point, David. Blah, blah blah....

Pierre,

In amongst all your meaningless bluster, in your cliché and error filled post, in which you continually confuse the Evening News with the Evening Post, it is hard for me to find even one sensible sentence to respond to.

As far as I can tell from your post, your position is that if a newspaper makes an mistake with a person's name, or some other minor mistake, on one occasion, then nothing else in that newspaper on any date can ever be taken as reliable. It's an absurd proposition. It's equally absurd to say that because an individual reporter once made a mistake then we cannot rely on a single one of his stories at any time in the past or future.

If, however, you wanted to try an undermine the credibility of the Evening Post's representative on 9 November due to errors in the interview with Mrs Kennedy than you first had to establish that he was the representative referred to in the 10 November edition who interviewed her, something you have completely failed to do. It's not for me to prove they are different people, it is for you to demonstrate they are the same person - but you have failed. The best we can say is that it might have been the same man but you would clearly despise such conjecture.

Let me put it another way Pierre. The big problem here for you is that you actually have no idea about who reported the story with all the so called "mistakes" in it and who wrote the article and who put together the special edition with all its final so-called "mistakes" in it. It's not a problem for me.

I note it was your third attempt at trying to undermine the Evening Post report of Kelly drinking in the pub. In your first post on the topic in this thread (#14) you didn't mention Mrs Kennedy. Nor did you in your second post (#18) when you asked me two questions and evidently did not like the answers I gave you so suddenly (in post #21) your entire attack on the Evening Post was centred around a completely different report relating to Mrs Kennedy. It's not only a bizarre way to behave it shows your clear bias in trying to undermine newspaper evidence which you don't like.

I thought you would have been happy because the Evening Post representative on 9 November made it clear that he had spoken to a man who saw Kelly emerging from her house to get some milk. Previously you were confused as to whether it was "a woman" who had been seen going for milk but this report expressly clarifies that it was Kelly. So I answered the very question you had asked me to answer for you. The problem is that you instantly reject answers that don't fit in with whatever theory you have developed.

As for "Mrs Kennedy", you should note that Reynolds's Newspaper of 11 November stated "A Mrs Kennedy was questioned by the police as to what she had heard during the night."

Then we have The Times of 12 November 1888 which stated that: "Detective Inspector Abberline has interviewed a girl named Kennedy who states that at about half-past 3 on the morning of the murder she went to her parents' house, which is opposite the room occupied by Mary Jane Kelly, and on reaching the court she saw a woman talking to two men. Shortly afterwards, when inside her father's house, she heard a cry of "Murder" in a woman's voice, and she alleges the sound came from the direction of Kelly's room."

These reports are independent of the Evening Post report so clearly Sarah Lewis, for whatever reason, was calling herself Mrs Kennedy. Hence your entire argument collapses.

[wigngown]

Quote 'Therefore the risks to JtR, in nineteenth century Whitechapel, would have been minimal. And he knew it'

Exactly.
Best regards.

[David Orsam]

Hello David,

But if Kelly was murdered by JtR, surely he wouldn't have needed to expend time and effort on starting a fire for purposes of light. Thus, Eddowes was successfully eviscerated, with both the kidney and uterus removed, in what would have been appalling lighting conditions, i.e. the darkest part of Mitre Square. This clearly indicates an assailant for whom poor lighting would be no major obstacle.

And why the need for heat? Wouldn't it have been cold when the other victims were killed? Of course, you therorize that the killer may have stripped naked to avoid getting blood on himself-the police proposed the same unconvincing theory in the famous Wallace murder case-but where's the evidence that JtR demonstrated that level of organization? He certainly didn't seem concerned about this issue in the previous murders. And why would he? After all, it wouldn't be uncommon in the locality for butchers and slaughtermen to be wandering around the neighbourhood with their clothes stained in blood. In fact, as I've noted on other threads, in more modern times Robert Napper successfully avoided attracting attention to himself when he stabbed Rachel Nickell 49 times, in a public park, in broad daylight.

Therefore the risks to JtR, in nineteenth century Whitechapel, would have been minimal. And he knew it.

John,

How can I possibly know why that fire was started? Abby asked me for my views and I gave them, but as theoretical possibilities only. Light or heat seem to me to be the obvious reasons but he could also have been burning something.

Your speculations about what the killer would or would not have done strike me as highly unconvincing. How can you possibly know whether or not he wanted light in that room? Or heat? How can you know whether or not he murdered her while naked? You haven't got a clue. Nor have I. Trying to extrapolate from other murders is daft when none of the other murders were in a room. So what is the point of speculating based on nothing more than pure guesswork?

The only point I want to make about the fire is that nothing about its existence assists us in any way as to establishing the time of death. I did, in fact, make that point in my last post on the subject but you seem to have ignored it.