Morris Lewis Revisited

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Good for you.

Regards,

Simon

[John G]

Don't hold your Breath John.

Thanks, GUT, I wasn't intending to!

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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?

[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]

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.

[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!

[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.

[wigngown]

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

Exactly.
Best regards.

[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.

[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.