Morris Lewis Revisited

[John G]

What was risky about a fire in 1888? Everyone had fires.

As for performing mutilations on the other victims (assuming it's the same killer) there were street lamps providing some illumination. Every human being needs light to see and if there was no light in room 13 Millers Court the killer needed to create some, otherwise he or she would not have been able to see what he or she was doing.

But the room may well have been illuminated by a roaring fire, considering the likely quality of the curtain that covered the window. In fact, even some modern curtains can be seen through.

[David Orsam]

But why do you say that Dr Biggs' opinion, which relates to the issue of "adequate lighting", would not be applicable generally?

Oh come on John! You are not telling me that Dr Biggs has revealed to us in his answer that no murderer/mutilator ever needs light to see what they are doing are you? You cannot take his answer in respect of a specific question about one victim and apply that to other victims. In any case, his answer is irrelevant because he has no idea about the lighting conditions in Mitre Square in 1888 and, as to that, Dr Sequeira said "There would have been sufficient light to enable the murderer to commit his crime without the aid of any additional light".

I would also point out that he was responding to a question of Trevor's, in which it was stated that Eddowes was mutilated, and her uterus and kidney removed, in "almost total darkness".

Firstly Dr Biggs should not have been told that Eddowes was mutilated in "almost total darkness" because that was not the evidence, the evidence being that there was "sufficient light" albeit that Eddowes was killed in the darkest corner of the square. Secondly, the killer of Kelly did more (or carried out different mutilations) than simply remove her uterus and kidney.

Whether Kelly was murdered by JtR or not has no bearing on whether Maxwell's, or Lewis's evidence, should be accepted, as the same arguments would apply either way.

Well it most certainly does if the point being made is that JTR's eyesight was superhuman in that he did not need light to see he was doing, as shown by the fact that he supposedly murdered and mutilated his other victims in "almost total darkness" and, thus, it is said, he would not have needed to light a fire at 9:00am therefore the existence of the fire somehow proves that Kelly must have been murdered in the middle of the night.

[John G]

I agree with you John.

One has to decide on whether A) he was able to perform mutilations in darkness or B) not. This must be decided first in order to be able to hypothesize about the fire.

1) If he was, the fire is to be explained as unnecessary and risky.

2) If he wasn´t, we think he needed additional light.

3) But did he need "a large fire", given the risk?

4) If he wasn´t, how did he manage to perform the mutilations on the other victims?

And so on and so forth.

Regards, Pierre

Thanks Pierre. And I agree with the points that you've made.

[David Orsam]

I agree with you John.

One has to decide on whether A) he was able to perform mutilations in darkness or B) not. This must be decided first in order to be able to hypothesize about the fire.

1) If he was, the fire is to be explained as unnecessary and risky.

2) If he wasn´t, we think he needed additional light.

3) But did he need "a large fire", given the risk?

4) If he wasn´t, how did he manage to perform the mutilations on the other victims?

And so on and so forth.

What was risky about a fire in 1888? Everyone had fires.

As for performing mutilations on the other victims (assuming it's the same killer) there were street lamps providing some illumination. Every human being needs light to see and if there was no light in room 13 Millers Court the killer needed to create some, otherwise he or she would not have been able to see what he or she was doing.

[Pierre]

If Kelly was murdered by JtR it's difficult to see why he would need a fire, unless he was feeling a bit cold! Of course, light is another possibility, however, both Chapman and Eddowes were eviscerated by a killer who demonstrated a fairly high level of skill, at least according to the medical experts. However, the lighting conditions would have been poor and he was operating under serious time pressures.

In contrast, Kelly's murderer demonstrated very little skill, adopting a cut and slash approach. Now, considering he would have been under significantly less time pressure-because she was murdered indoors-why, if he was JtR, would he have needed to light a fire to improve the lighting conditions in these circumstances, particularly as, by doing so, he risked drawing unwelcomed attention to his activities?

I agree with you John.

One has to decide on whether A) he was able to perform mutilations in darkness or B) not. This must be decided first in order to be able to hypothesize about the fire.

1) If he was, the fire is to be explained as unnecessary and risky.

2) If he wasn´t, we think he needed additional light.

3) But did he need "a large fire", given the risk?

4) If he wasn´t, how did he manage to perform the mutilations on the other victims?

And so on and so forth.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

I repeat: "These kind of questions and answers, which are all theoretical, get us absolutely nowhere because you can always say "oh that's a bit unlikely" but unless you can rule them out conclusively they don't even begin to negate the evidence of Mrs Maxwell."



That was said by Dr Biggs in answer to a question about the murder and mutilation of Catherine Eddowes.

But why do you say that Dr Biggs' opinion, which relates to the issue of "adequate lighting", would not be applicable generally? I would also point out that he was responding to a question of Trevor's, in which it was stated that Eddowes was mutilated, and her uterus and kidney removed, in "almost total darkness".

Whether Kelly was murdered by JtR or not has no bearing on whether Maxwell's, or Lewis's evidence, should be accepted, as the same arguments would apply either way.

[David Orsam]

I certainly wouldn't totally rule out the possibility that Kelly was killed by someone other than JtR, although I consider it unlikely.

I repeat: "These kind of questions and answers, which are all theoretical, get us absolutely nowhere because you can always say "oh that's a bit unlikely" but unless you can rule them out conclusively they don't even begin to negate the evidence of Mrs Maxwell."

Would the killer have needed light to eviscerate Kelly, given the low level of skill demonstrated? This is Dr Biggs opinion:

"Once the abdomen is open, organs are recognizable as discreet, solid masses of relatively firm tissue in contrast to the intestines or collections of fat. The difference is readily apparent to the touch (hence no need for adequate lighting)." (Marriott, 2013).

That was said by Dr Biggs in answer to a question about the murder and mutilation of Catherine Eddowes.

[John G]

Are you going back on your previous position now John?

All these questions have been answered already.

1. 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".

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.

3. Killer might have wanted to burn something.

These kind of questions and answers, which are all theoretical, get us absolutely nowhere because you can always say "oh that's a bit unlikely" but unless you can rule them out conclusively they don't even begin to negate the evidence of Mrs Maxwell. But if the only way to answer them, consistent with Mrs M's evidence, was that Kelly was killed by someone other than the murderer of Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes then that could be the answer.

I certainly wouldn't totally rule out the possibility that Kelly was killed by someone other than JtR, although I consider it unlikely.

Would the killer have needed light to eviscerate Kelly, given the low level of skill demonstrated? This is Dr Biggs' opinion:

"Once the abdomen is open, organs are recognizable as discreet, solid masses of relatively firm tissue in contrast to the intestines or collections of fat. The difference is readily apparent to the touch (hence no need for adequate lighting)." (Marriott, 2013).

[David Orsam]

If Kelly was murdered by JtR it's difficult to see why he would need a fire, unless he was feeling a bit cold! Of course, light is another possibility, however, both Chapman and Eddowes were eviscerated by a killer who demonstrated a fairly high level of skill, at least according to the medical experts. However, the lighting conditions would have been poor and he was operating under serious time pressures.

In contrast, Kelly's murderer demonstrated very little skill, adopting a cut and slash approach. Now, considering he would have been under significantly less time pressure-because she was murdered indoors-why, if he was JtR, would he have needed to light a fire to improve the lighting conditions in these circumstances, particularly as, by doing so, he risked drawing unwelcomed attention to his activities?

Are you going back on your previous position now John?

All these questions have been answered already.

1. 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".

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.

3. Killer might have wanted to burn something.

These kind of questions and answers, which are all theoretical, get us absolutely nowhere because you can always say "oh that's a bit unlikely" but unless you can rule them out conclusively they don't even begin to negate the evidence of Mrs Maxwell. But if the only way to answer them, consistent with Mrs M's evidence, was that Kelly was killed by someone other than the murderer of Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes then that could be the answer.

[John G]

If Kelly was murdered by JtR it's difficult to see why he would need a fire, unless he was feeling a bit cold! Of course, light is another possibility, however, both Chapman and Eddowes were eviscerated by a killer who demonstrated a fairly high level of skill, at least according to the medical experts. However, the lighting conditions would have been poor and he was operating under serious time pressures.

In contrast, Kelly's murderer demonstrated very little skill, adopting a cut and slash approach. Now, considering he would have been under significantly less time pressure-because she was murdered indoors-why, if he was JtR, would he have needed to light a fire to improve the lighting conditions in these circumstances, particularly as, by doing so, he risked drawing unwelcomed attention to his activities?

[David Orsam]

I can too.

Although you go on to say the opposite.

[Semper_Eadem]

I can.

1) Poor prostitutes in Spitalfields could not afford to burn clothes.

2) The killer had no reason to light a large fire in the grate in the light of the morning.

3) Oh, murder!

Regards, Pierre

I can too. There was no valid reason to light a fire but that does not mean that the Killer didn't. He probably needed more light for his grizzly dissection work.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;379680]

I Beleive Pierre doesn't think it was Kelly who screamed but another woman who found her body and that the ripper intended this to happen.

I asked him if it was prater and if not who he thought it was and of course he never said.

Hi Abby,

Thanks. If that is what Pierre believes it raises a question: why did the person he thinks found the body not come forward? However, as you suggest, Pierre seems reluctant to answer certain questions at the moment.

I can understand the argument that, in respect of Kelly, the killer posed the body, and committed extensive mutilations for shock value, but that objective would have been achieved regardless of who discovered, and subsequently viewed, the body. If he considers it was a particular neighbour of Kelly he intended to shock then he must demonstrate a viable connection between that individual and the killer. He must also explain how the killer knew that that particular individual would be the one to discover the body.

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=John G;379668]

QUOTE=John G;379634]

Based upon your own logic Lewis is the only source for the proposition that the cries appeared to come from the direction of Kelly's room, and therefore this source material cannot be relied upon.

Do you think it was the killer who screamed? If so, on what basis would you argue this point? Moreover, Sarah Lewis, a witness you've previously relied on, said that she heard "a scream like that of a young woman."

I Beleive Pierre doesn't think it was Kelly who screamed but another woman who found her body and that the ripper intended this to happen.

I asked him if it was prater and if not who he thought it was and of course he never said.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;379659]QUOTE=John G;379634]

Hello Pierre,

Yes, the points you make are all valid, but I consider none of them to be decisive. Thus, I agree Kelly would have been crazy to burn her own clothes, but we don't know that it was Kelly's clothes that were burnt. For instance, they could have belonged to Marie Harvey, and Kelly may have had a motive to burn her clothes.

Nor do we know why the fire was lit. If light was the reason, and assuming she was killed by JtR, then the murderer had previously demonstrated that he could effectively mutilate victims in appalling lighting conditions. And lighting a fire in these circumstances may have been counterproductive, i.e. it might draw attention to his activities.



",...they were considered common place in the neighbourhood,..."

No, you are making the same old mistakes as everyone else who says that. The right sentence here is:

",...they were considered common place in the head of Prater,..."

or if you use source criticism:

",...they were considered common place according to the talk of Prater,..."

So Prater is the source and the only source. And you can not generalize from one source to "they were considered....in the neighbourhood". And especially not in this case, since there was a murder in the house where Prater stayed and she heard the cry on the same night.



Sarah Lewis, original inquest papers:

"The sound seemed to come from the direction of deceaseds room".



Why do you think the scream came from Kelly?

Regards, Pierre

Based upon your own logic Lewis is the only source for the proposition that the cries appeared to come from the direction of Kelly's room, and therefore this source material cannot be relied upon.

Do you think it was the killer who screamed? If so, on what basis would you argue this point? Moreover, Sarah Lewis, a witness you've previously relied on, said that she heard "a scream like that of a young woman."