Morris Lewis Revisited

[John G]

Hi John
I have the greatest respect for Dr Biggs and the other medical experts who assisted me but as I said in a previous post they are all very gung ho in what they say they could do given the same situation.

Sure a modern day pathologist might claim to be able to remove these organs in almost total darkness in record time by touch alone , but to date none have been put to the test. On the other side we have other medical experts who claim the opposite that it would have been almost impossible.

And of course with Kelly it was simply cut and slash with no organs being removed to be taken away.

That might explain the fact that kellys murder was carried out by another killer and made to look like the work of the WM

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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 G]

The ridiculous bit of your sentence is "if any". Of course he required some light so that he could see what he was doing.

And you haven't answered my question. What is the purpose of this line of discussion? Are you still trying to undermine Mrs Maxwell's evidence about the timing of the death or is it simply a theoretical discussion, in the abstract, about light?

Okay, if we're going to be somewhat pedantic, I'll substitute the phrase "if any" with the word "minimal". Would that suffice? If not, what about "any additional light"?

And frankly, what I would consider "ridiculous" is the idea that the perpetrator would require additional light, such as that provided by a roaring fire, after , say, 9:00am in the morning, over 5 hours after locals were leaving for work when, presumably, there was sufficient light to see, especially as Kelly was eviscerated with nothing like the level of skill suggested by the Chapman and Eddowes murders.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Thanks. Of course, Dr Biggs, who didn't believe any great level of skill was demonstrated, offered the opinion that the recognition of the body's organs would be "readily apparent to the touch...hence no need for adequate lighting" (Marriott, 2015).

Of course, even if Kelly was murdered as early as, say, 4:00 am, there may have been adequate natural light penetrating the curtains (particularly the type of flimsy curtains that a poor person such as Kelly would be likely able to afford.)

And it's worth pointing out that locals were heading off for work around that time, i.e. Lechmere, and a Mr Thompson referred to by Mrs Richardson, so it couldn't have been that dark.

I also wonder if lack of lighting might explain why far less skill was apparent in Kelly's case than, say, Chapman or Eddowes.

Hi John
I have the greatest respect for Dr Biggs and the other medical experts who assisted me but as I said in a previous post they are all very gung ho in what they say they could do given the same situation.

Sure a modern day pathologist might claim to be able to remove these organs in almost total darkness in record time by touch alone , but to date none have been put to the test. On the other side we have other medical experts who claim the opposite that it would have been almost impossible.

And of course with Kelly it was simply cut and slash with no organs being removed to be taken away.

That might explain the fact that kellys murder was carried out by another killer and made to look like the work of the WM

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Then I apologise.

I was not trying to argue with you. Only join in what I thought was a discussion.

Sorry I got it wrong.

No worries.

[Azarna]

Then I apologise.

I was not trying to argue with you. Only join in what I thought was a discussion.

Sorry I got it wrong.

[David Orsam]

Please explain why my politely expressing a logical possibility does not belong in this thread, or is "wild speculation"? But "The killer might have murdered and/or mutilated Kelly in the nude to prevent blood splatter on his or her clothes. Hence a fire used to keep warm while "working".", which is also pure speculation, is ok?

Because this thread is about Morris Lewis and the issue of whether Kelly could have been alive at, or around, 9:00am and thus murdered after that time. In attempting to dismiss this notion, some people have suggested that the existence of the fire somehow proves that Kelly was murdered in the middle of the night. I have said that there are various possible reasons why that fire could have been lit after 9:00am. Unless you (or anyone) can show that it is inconceivable for a fire to have been lit after 9:00am, for all the reasons I have put forward, there is no point in posting. It is absolutely futile to list all kinds of hypothetical possibilities about why the killer might not have needed a fire, such as he might have brought his own candles.

Yes of course he might have brought his own candles, he might have had a lantern and various other possibilities, but they belong in a separate thread about the fire (if you want to speculate about hypotheticals). Because this thread is not about the fire. I am not putting forward any positive points about the fire. I am simply saying that there is nothing about the fire which negates the evidence of Mrs Maxwell or the reported observations of Morris Lewis. In doing so, I have been compelled to put forward various reasons why the killer might have lit the fire after 9:00am and I repeat that there is just no point in arguing with me unless you can say that it is inconceivable that such a fire could have been lit for the reasons I have given.

[Azarna]

I was responding to this sentence:

" If there was no other light source in the room (which there wasn't) the fire would have been vital for the killer to see what he or she was doing."

I said that I thought there was a candle in the room, which is a light source.

I then speculated (and I really don't understand why I can not air a speculation when others do so all the time).. that we can not know that there was "no other light source in the room", because the killer COULD have bought a candle. I then clarified that I didn't really think that was likely, but it IS a possibility.

Please explain why my politely expressing a logical possibility does not belong in this thread, or is "wild speculation"? But "The killer might have murdered and/or mutilated Kelly in the nude to prevent blood splatter on his or her clothes. Hence a fire used to keep warm while "working".", which is also pure speculation, is ok?

[David Orsam]

I think there was a couple of candles found in the room. The killer could have bought his own candles (not saying I think he walked around with a pocket full if candles, just saying that he could have - we can't be sure how much light he actually had.)

Unless your point is that you think the killer actually brought candles into the room with him I can't see the purpose of this post in this thread. I'm not saying the killer DID light a fire for the purpose of the light, only that it is one of the various possibilities. And the only reason I'm doing that is because some people seem to think that the existence of the fire rules out the notion of Kelly having been murdered after 8:00am which is such a futile point that we are all wasting our time discussing it.

[David Orsam]

I'm not sure that mutilating Kelly in such a crude way would have required much, if any, light.

The ridiculous bit of your sentence is "if any". Of course he required some light so that he could see what he was doing.

And you haven't answered my question. What is the purpose of this line of discussion? Are you still trying to undermine Mrs Maxwell's evidence about the timing of the death or is it simply a theoretical discussion, in the abstract, about light?

[David Orsam]

Hi David
Re Number one. Thats just silly. I have seen you mention this possibility before. Why?

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.'

But please bear in mind that I'm not saying that this is what actually happened, only that this is what could have happened by way of a response to what I do regard as a silly point in this thread that the killer would not have started the fire for heat; silly because we have no idea what was in the killer's mind and all this guessing is a waste of time.

[John G]

In the case of Kelly you would be right simply cut and slash was the killers MO. and what he did to her body would have needed some degree of light. Couldn't have taken place in total darkness.

To rely on touch the killer would have to have been anatomically experienced to have been able to locate the organs simply by touch, and I would suggest that in 1888 only the most experienced of surgeons might have had that knowledge and no anatomical knowledge was shown to have been present on this murder.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Thanks. Of course, Dr Biggs, who didn't believe any great level of skill was demonstrated, offered the opinion that the recognition of the body's organs would be "readily apparent to the touch...hence no need for adequate lighting" (Marriott, 2015).

Of course, even if Kelly was murdered as early as, say, 4:00 am, there may have been adequate natural light penetrating the curtains (particularly the type of flimsy curtains that a poor person such as Kelly would be likely able to afford.)

And it's worth pointing out that locals were heading off for work around that time, i.e. Lechmere, and a Mr Thompson referred to by Mrs Richardson, so it couldn't have been that dark.

I also wonder if lack of lighting might explain why far less skill was apparent in Kelly's case than, say, Chapman or Eddowes.

[Azarna]

I was not wildly speculating, far from it.

Just saying we can not know for sure how much light he actually has available to him.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think there was a couple of candles found in the room. The killer could have bought his own candles (not saying I think he walked around with a pocket full if candles, just saying that he could have - we can't be sure how much light he actually had.)

If you cant be sure no need for wild speculation

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Azarna]

2. The killer was not superhuman with superhuman eyesight. If the curtains were blocking out the light from outside it would have been dark in the room. Everyone needs light to see. Previously (assuming Kelly was murdered by the same person who murdered the other women) he or she would have had light from street lamps to assist. If there was no other light source in the room (which there wasn't) the fire would have been vital for the killer to see what he or she was doing.

I think there was a couple of candles found in the room. The killer could have bought his own candles (not saying I think he walked around with a pocket full if candles, just saying that he could have - we can't be sure how much light he actually had.)

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm not sure that mutilating Kelly in such a crude way would have required much, if any, light. The killer could have relied on touch. Anyway, if she was murdered in the early hours of the morning, i.e. after sunrise, then surely sufficient light would have penetrated the curtains.

In the case of Kelly you would be right simply cut and slash was the killers MO. and what he did to her body would have needed some degree of light. Couldn't have taken place in total darkness.

To rely on touch the killer would have to have been anatomically experienced to have been able to locate the organs simply by touch, and I would suggest that in 1888 only the most experienced of surgeons might have had that knowledge and no anatomical knowledge was shown to have been present on this murder.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk