Morris Lewis Revisited

[Pierre]

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

Hi Simon,

"The newspaper reports". No good sources, Simon.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

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.

You see John, you've started this line of argument by speculating (against the opinion of Inspector Abberline it should be said) that Kelly started the fire and then when I agree with you that it's possible, and she could have done it in the morning, you pile speculation upon speculation and start guessing about her state of mind and her thought process about which you have no reliable basis to speculate whatsoever. I could argue the exact opposite; namely that at night she was wrapped up warm in her bed but in the daytime she was walking around and wanted to bring men back so she could pay for her rent and couldn't bring them back to a freezing room. It's all just pointless discussion and guesswork. Don't you see that?

Do you seriously think that the existence of the fire indicates that Kelly wasn't killed in the morning?

I call it wishful thinking.

[Pierre]

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.

There is no need to do it, David. I have a rubbish bin for newspaper articles. Feel free to use it anytime.

Regards, Pierre

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

I have not suggested that Mrs Kennedy and Sarah Lewis were two different women. That's your surmise.

I simply want to know why their stories are inconsistent.

Regards,

Simon

[Pierre]

Hi David,

I have not suggested that Mrs Kennedy and Sarah Lewis were two different women. That's your surmise.

I simply want to know why their stories are inconsistent.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

It is a typical problem for historical sources. They are very often inconsistent. Even the most respected sources are based on numerous inconsistencies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO_lS0QcZxs

This is why we use source criticism!

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

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.

That's not quite the case though Pierre because in her oral evidence she said she was at the Keyler house in Millers Court at "half past 2" and that she knew the time by having looked at Spitalfields Church clock as she passed it. In her statement to the police she said she came to stop with the Keylers "Between 2 and 3 o'clock this morning." Now I'm not saying the two statements are inconsistent - because 2.30 is clearly between 2 and 3 - but if she remembered seeing the church clock why didn't she tell the police the precise time of 2.30? Further, in her police statement there is no mention of seeing the suspicious man by Ringers on the Friday morning. Why not? Had she forgotten about it only to remember it when giving her oral evidence?

But really Pierre none of this matters in the slightest for, while you have successfully drawn me down an irrelevant path, you have completely failed to demonstrate that the individual representative who gave the story to the Evening Post about Kelly drinking in a public house on the Friday morning is in any way unreliable. Until you can do this, the whole story about Mrs Kennedy is 100% irrelevant to anything and nothing more than a distraction, to deflect attention away from your confusion in your earlier posts in this thread.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Another possibility to consider is that Mrs Kennedy/Sarah Lewis was talking bollocks.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

I have not suggested that Mrs Kennedy and Sarah Lewis were two different women. That's your surmise.

Yes, because I wasn't born yesterday.

I simply want to know why their stories are inconsistent.

Well I've been trying to tell you that the accounts of Mrs Kennedy and Sarah Lewis are NOT inconsistent but you don't seem to be the slightest bit interested.

You could easily have told me where you got your version of Mrs Kennedy's story from but decided not to (I'm guessing an American newspaper?) but the only mystery, if there is one, is why the two versions of Mrs Kennedy's story are inconsistent, assuming there really are two versions.

[John G]

You see John, you've started this line of argument by speculating (against the opinion of Inspector Abberline it should be said) that Kelly started the fire and then when I agree with you that it's possible, and she could have done it in the morning, you pile speculation upon speculation and start guessing about her state of mind and her thought process about which you have no reliable basis to speculate whatsoever. I could argue the exact opposite; namely that at night she was wrapped up warm in her bed but in the daytime she was walking around and wanted to bring men back so she could pay for her rent and couldn't bring them back to a freezing room. It's all just pointless discussion and guesswork. Don't you see that?

Do you seriously think that the existence of the fire indicates that Kelly wasn't killed in the morning?

I call it wishful thinking.

Hello David,

Well, I suggested that Kelly could have started the fire and the killer took advantage of this, i.e. by adding the clothes. Obviously it can't be proved the fire was started in the evening but, for the reasons I have given, I think it more likely than not.

Regarding your argument that she may have started the fire so she could bring back clients, I think this pretty much untenable. Firstly, where is the evidence she was soliciting on the morning of her murder? Secondly, why would she be crazy enough to leave a fire burning whilst "she was walking around" for purpose of solicitation or, for that matter, any purpose? I mean, by the time she returned with a client the fire may have virtually/completely burnt out.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Another possibility to consider is that Mrs Kennedy/Sarah Lewis was talking bollocks.

It's not impossible but, bearing in mind that the only versions of the Kennedy/Lewis story of which I am aware are broadly consistent with each other, there doesn't seem to me to be any sound basis on which to reach such a conclusion.

[John G]

Hi David,

I tend to agree with the above post, however, George Hutchinson's police and press accounts were very similar and, in my opinion, he's a far from convincing witness.

[David Orsam]

Regarding your argument that she may have started the fire so she could bring back clients, I think this pretty much untenable.

Of course it's not untenable. I don't need evidence to speculate about this in the way that none of your speculations are supported by evidence. We know she was a prostitute so why do I need to provide evidence that she was soliciting on that particular morning? It's totally unrealistic. She could simply have lit the fire when she walked in the door with her client. I can't say it happened, you can't say it didn't happen. But I can only repeat that the existence of the fire in that room provides absolutely no indication of the time of death and that is the only point that can be made.

If you want a reliable indicator of the time of death try and find the person who last saw Kelly alive and the time that sighting occurred. If you can identify someone who gave such information under oath in a public forum knowing that what he or she said would be reported in all the newspapers then you will have done quite well.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Pierre,

A Ripperological rule of thumb.

Press reports, medical opinions and public clocks are unfailingly accurate when promoting theories but hopelessly inaccurate when disputing them.

Regards,

Simon

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;376146]

That's not quite the case though Pierre because in her oral evidence she said she was at the Keyler house in Millers Court at "half past 2" and that she knew the time by having looked at Spitalfields Church clock as she passed it. In her statement to the police she said she came to stop with the Keylers "Between 2 and 3 o'clock this morning."

I thought you might notice this because so did I. 2.30 is a point in time between 2 and 3. So it is not inconsistent and not contradictory.

Now I'm not saying the two statements are inconsistent - because 2.30 is clearly between 2 and 3 - but if she remembered seeing the church clock why didn't she tell the police the precise time of 2.30?

Because in the inquest source, Sarah Lewis is adding details. And this is precisely what she is doing when she testifies that the time was 2.30. She is trying to be precise, since she is at the inquest and she is sworn.

Further, in her police statement there is no mention of seeing the suspicious man by Ringers on the Friday morning. Why not? Had she forgotten about it only to remember it when giving her oral evidence?

Because, in the police investigation source, she is probably trying to explain the episode with seeing the man two times but the police can not manage to understand the statement. I base this hypothesis on the fact that the source gives us "[talking to a female" - deleted]. But I think my interpretation in this case is of rather low validity, since the excerpt from the text I base it on is so short. But since we know that Sarah Lewis was more specific in the inquest source, the hypothesis is relevant.

But really Pierre none of this matters in the slightest for, while you have successfully drawn me down an irrelevant path, you have completely failed to demonstrate that the individual representative who gave the story to the Evening Post about Kelly drinking in a public house on the Friday morning is in any way unreliable.

So you still fail to understand that the reporter has got the name of Sarah Lewis wrong, and that the newspaper is full of errors. The best way for you to understand how errors function in newspaper articles, is to do comparisons between newspaper articles and the inquest source. Then you will see for yourself how this works, and you will not have to listen to me, a person you do not trust.

Until you can do this, the whole story about Mrs Kennedy is 100% irrelevant to anything and nothing more than a distraction, to deflect attention away from your confusion in your earlier posts in this thread.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

I tend to agree with the above post, however, George Hutchinson's police and press accounts were very similar and, in my opinion, he's a far from convincing witness.

Just to clarify, I didn't say that because the various accounts of Kennedy/Lewis are consistent that means she was telling the truth. I said that there doesn't seem to be any sound basis to reach the conclusion that she was lying. With Hutchinson, we know that he didn't come forward for a few days and missed the inquest so there's a totally different starting point.