Morris Lewis Revisited

[John G]

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

Exactly.
Best regards.

Thank you!

[John G]

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.

Hello David,

I disagree. It makes much more sense to argue that the fire was originally started by Kelly, at night time, and that the killer may have taken advantage of that fact.

[David Orsam]

Hello David,

I disagree. It makes much more sense to argue that the fire was originally started by Kelly, at night time, and that the killer may have taken advantage of that fact.

But John for the reasons I've already given it could have been started by Kelly in the middle of the morning for light or heat.

It just doesn't assist as to timing.

[John G]

But John for the reasons I've already given it could have been started by Kelly in the middle of the morning for light or heat.

It just doesn't assist as to timing.

But why the need for light after 10:00am? And would a poor person like Kelly, several weeks behind on the rent, really go to the trouble and expense of a fire so late in the morning? Surely this would have been regarded as an unnecessary extravagance?

In fact, if Maxwell and Lewis are to be believed she wasn't even home for most of the morning. However, I accept she may have returned to, say, sleep of a hangover. But, in such circumstances, is it likely she would have been motivated to start a fire?

[Simon Wood]

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.

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. ?

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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".

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.

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].

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."

15. Mrs Kennedy knew—or at least could recognize—"the deceased".

Sarah Lewis "did not know the deceased."

Regards,

Simon

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;376090]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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

Yes, and my point was, as above, that the sources contain no evidence for Sarah Lewis not being able to remember events in the past. The correspondence between the police investigation source and the inquest source for her statements, the latter in which Lewis even adds details without contradicting herself, makes this clear.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;375975]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.

Yes, it is "possible" that it was for heat as much as for light.

But when you hypothesize about these two options, you are naturally thinking functionally. And I agree with you, the fire should have had some function or it would not have been lit.

You can also use a theory of rational choice here: The killer should then gain something by lighting a fire: heat - or light?

But the problem is that the killer took a great risk by lighting up the room, if he did so, while murdering and mutilating the victim. He could have been discovered.

And this problem should therefore be compared to the functional hypothesis as well as the rational choice hypothesis:

1) Is it probable (not possible now) - and equally probable - that the killer functionally lit up the room, or that the killer heated up the room, at the cost of being discovered?

Or is it probable that he would not have done so?

2) Is it probable (not possible now) that the killer made the rational choice to light up or heat up the room, at the cost of being discovered?

Or is it probable that he would not have done so?

I would really appreciate your comment on those two different sets of questions. Because I do not have the answers. I have just tried to deduct an answer from constructing "dark periods" and "possible light periods" from the data available to us, and have come to the conclusions previously presented here.

Kind regards, Pierre

[GUT]

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.

Don't hold your Breath John.

[David Orsam]

Hi Simon,

How wonderful for you to join this thread.

I have looked carefully at your list of at what is presumably supposed to highlight differences between the accounts of Sarah Lewis and Mrs Kennedy designed to show they are different people (although, of course, you do not say this is what you think).

I have three problems with the list:

1. I cannot find the source of most of what you attribute to Mrs Kennedy. The only published accounts I am personally aware of are found in the Evening Post of 10 November (repeated in other newspapers) and if you compare what she said in that newspaper with the evidence of Sarah Lewis, the accounts are broadly consistent. To the extent that you have found a report in which Mrs Kennedy gives different information, this only shows her being inconsistent herself, but could you please identify the source?

2. Even in what you have posted, most of Kennedy's account seems to be consistent with the account of Sarah Lewis.

3. The stuff you have posted about Hutchinson only serves to confuse and is irrelevant.

Having compared the account of Mrs Kennedy from the Evening Post and that of Sarah Lewis I have no doubt whatsoever that it's the same person.

[John G]

Don't hold your Breath John.

Thanks, GUT, I wasn't intending to!

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Good for you.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Good for you.

Regards,

Simon

You are not going to give me your source for the statements you attribute to Mrs Kennedy?

[David Orsam]

But why the need for light after 10:00am? And would a poor person like Kelly, several weeks behind on the rent, really go to the trouble and expense of a fire so late in the morning? Surely this would have been regarded as an unnecessary extravagance?

In fact, if Maxwell and Lewis are to be believed she wasn't even home for most of the morning. However, I accept she may have returned to, say, sleep of a hangover. But, in such circumstances, is it likely she would have been motivated to start a fire?

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.

[Pierre]

Hi Simon,

How wonderful for you to join this thread.

I have looked carefully at your list of at what is presumably supposed to highlight differences between the accounts of Sarah Lewis and Mrs Kennedy designed to show they are different people (although, of course, you do not say this is what you think).

I have three problems with the list:

1. I cannot find the source of most of what you attribute to Mrs Kennedy. The only published accounts I am personally aware of are found in the Evening Post of 10 November (repeated in other newspapers) and if you compare what she said in that newspaper with the evidence of Sarah Lewis, the accounts are broadly consistent. To the extent that you have found a report in which Mrs Kennedy gives different information, this only shows her being inconsistent herself, but could you please identify the source?

2. Even in what you have posted, most of Kennedy's account seems to be consistent with the account of Sarah Lewis.

Yes, this is, as I have said, the correct interpretation.

3. The stuff you have posted about Hutchinson only serves to confuse and is irrelevant.

Having compared the account of Mrs Kennedy from the Evening Post and that of Sarah Lewis I have no doubt whatsoever that it's the same person.

Regards, Pierre

[Simon Wood]

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