Morris Lewis Revisited

[David Orsam]

But: from where do you have "34"? That is your own incorrect interpretation of "24" - is it not? I use your own source for your statement, which, by the way, has other spelling mistakes in it: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8685)

It is very good that you highlight the problem that there are even more mistakes in the statements of the Evening News. Thank you.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby, there's got to be a chance that the killer mutilated Kelly while naked so as to keep blood off his clothes. Abberline assumed the clothing was burnt for the purposes of light but it could equally have been for heat. If the murder was committed some time after 10:00am then, yes, assuming that Kelly didn't do it herself to keep warm during the night, it must have been done some time after 10:00am.

Thanks David.

or he might have just tossed em in there for spite.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;376046]

That is not the point, David. The provenience, i.e. the place of the origin for the statements, is the reporter(s) of the London Evening Post and/or their journalist(s) of the articles.

A big problem here is you actually have no idea about who reported the story with all the mistakes in it and who wrote the article and who put together the special edition with all its final mistakes in it.

If you want to learn more about this type of problem, here is an interesting part of a lecture about source criticism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO_lS0QcZxs

So since there are serious problems with the statements of this newspaper as to the "facts" (which they try to establish but can not) about the murder of Kelly, you can NOT draw the conclusion from this newspaper that " We now have confirmation that "two women" claimed to have seen Kelly drinking in a public house with a man at around 10am."



There is no analyse of the concept of "Kennedy" in this article, so why do you refer to it?



What are the statements above? Are they coming from your own imagination, David?

If you feel that you must now defend the Evening News, do take it all the way and explain all the other mistakes they made when they tried to describe and interpret the events and the statements people made 9 November around Dorset Street!



OK! There it is! "In your opinion", i.e. in your imagination.

How much of everything you write, David, is from your imagination? Since you do not manage source criticism.



Yes, it has. A I will show you in a moment.

But firstly, David: You are truly a good example of social bias. You do not even let the source kick back! You make of the source what you wish it to be. And the point is, that in this case it is obvious that the sources kick back.



I see the words "might be". And I see you are mixing the newspaper articles discussed here with other original sources.



OK. Letīs see!

1. Address



Yes. Here you see the same acoustical problem in the Evening News 12 November, as on the 10th November. "Powell" is interpreted as "Pearl". So, over time, the problem remains in the Evening News. It is not a reliable source, as I told you. And here, you also see my data for the hypothesis that the reporter misheard "Keylers" and interpreted it as "Kennedy".

But: from where do you have "34"? That is your own incorrect interpretation of "24" - is it not? I use your own source for your statement, which, by the way, has other spelling mistakes in it: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8685)

It is very good that you highlight the problem that there are even more mistakes in the statements of the Evening News. Thank you.

I see that our discussion has helped you to become a better source criticist and that you are in a learning process. But you are still not finished with your learning process, since you have made comparisons but not managed to reach the correct conclusion, which is:

There is no evidence for inconsistencies between the Lewis-statements in the police investigation and the inquest. In the inquest source you also find additions to her statements, and they are not in conflict with the police investigation source.

Make a source critical analysis of these two sources and you can even see that the "female" she is talking about in the police investigation is the same female she is talking about in the inquest source: "another young man with a woman passed along": that is the addition for ["talking to a female - deleted] in the police investigation source.

So my conclusion is that: There is no evidence that Sarah Lewis memory problems. But the people who did produce the Special Edition had both hearing problems and problems of understanding.

And, as everybody can see here, your first conclusion about an "independent confirmation" is wrong, your interpretations and conclusions about Sarah Lewis as a witness is wrong and so are your interpretations and conclusions about the sources.

I do not mean to say that you have done this on purpose, because I believe that you are an honest person trying to do your best. But your bias and lack of understanding of source criticism is making it hard for you.



School is not out yet, David. And please do not bite the hand that is teaching you. I understand that it feels uncomfortable for you to revise both your "Morris revisited" thread and your knowledge about source criticism, but I promise you that you will be a much more reliable history teller when you are finished with your education.

Kind regards, Pierre

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.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;375995]

Please don't write nonsense to me, Pierre, under the heading of "You are wrong, David".

Firstly, the interview with Mrs Kennedy comes from the Evening Post of 10 November whereas the story about Kelly drinking in a public house was in the Evening Post of 9 November, so you are comparing stories from newspapers of different dates and we don't even know if we are talking about the same journalist.

That is not the point, David. The provenience, i.e. the place of the origin for the statements, is the reporter(s) of the London Evening Post and/or their journalist(s) of the articles.

A big problem here is you actually have no idea about who reported the story with all the mistakes in it and who wrote the article and who put together the special edition with all its final mistakes in it.

If you want to learn more about this type of problem, here is an interesting part of a lecture about source criticism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO_lS0QcZxs

So since there are serious problems with the statements of this newspaper as to the "facts" (which they try to establish but can not) about the murder of Kelly, you can NOT draw the conclusion from this newspaper that " We now have confirmation that "two women" claimed to have seen Kelly drinking in a public house with a man at around 10am."

Secondly, and in any event, your lack of knowledge and reading about the Ripper crimes lets you down again. Chris Scott, in a Ripperologist article of August 2013 (Rip 133), established that Sarah Lewis was born Sarah Jane Henrietta Lewis. Now all references to Kennedy are to "Mrs Kennedy".

There is no analyse of the concept of "Kennedy" in this article, so why do you refer to it?

Tell me Pierre, what happens to a woman's surname when she gets married? You do know it usually changes to the husband's name, right? So immediately we can see that Miss Lewis and Mrs Kennedy can be one and the same person. You will note that Sarah Lewis said in her statement that she stopped with the Keylers in Millers Court because "I had had a few words with my husband". So Sarah Lewis was married and, undoubtedly, her surname was no longer Lewis but her husband's name.

What are the statements above? Are they coming from your own imagination, David?

If you feel that you must now defend the Evening News, do take it all the way and explain all the other mistakes they made when they tried to describe and interpret the events and the statements people made 9 November around Dorset Street!

Now, Chris Scott established that Sarah Lewis was living with (but had not, in fact, officially married) a man named Joseph Gotheimer in 1888. So, as his common law wife, she could have been calling herself "Mrs Gotheimer". But an English woman speaking to journalists might not have wanted to call herself by a foreign sounding name yet she still wanted to have the respectability attached to the title of "Mrs" so, in my opinion, she called herself "Mrs Kennedy."

OK! There it is! "In your opinion", i.e. in your imagination.

How much of everything you write, David, is from your imagination? Since you do not manage source criticism.

It's nothing to do with the journalist not hearing what she said or confusing Kennedy with "Keyler".

Yes, it has. A I will show you in a moment.

But firstly, David: You are truly a good example of social bias. You do not even let the source kick back! You make of the source what you wish it to be. And the point is, that in this case it is obvious that the sources kick back.

Thirdly, any inconsistencies in her reported story and the story she told the police and the coroner might just be due to her own memory and changes she made to her story. Just like Prater first said she heard two or three screams of murder in her statement then changed it just one. Remember that?

I see the words "might be". And I see you are mixing the newspaper articles discussed here with other original sources.

I also give you some examples of inconsistencies between Lewis' statement and her oral evidence in the coroner's court:

OK. Letīs see!

1. Address

Statement: "No 34 Great Pearl Street"
Oral Evidence: "I live at 24 Great Powell Street"

Yes. Here you see the same acoustical problem in the Evening News 12 November, as on the 10th November. "Powell" is interpreted as "Pearl". So, over time, the problem remains in the Evening News. It is not a reliable source, as I told you. And here, you also see my data for the hypothesis that the reporter misheard "Keylers" and interpreted it as "Kennedy".

But: from where do you have "34"? That is your own incorrect interpretation of "24" - is it not? I use your own source for your statement, which, by the way, has other spelling mistakes in it: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8685)

2. Time

Statement: "Between 2 and 3 o'clock"
Oral Evidence (becomes more precise): "half past 2 on Friday morning...I know the time by having looked at Spitalfields Church Close as I passed it"

3. Suspicious Man Accosted Her While With Another Female

Statement: "on Wednesday evening last at Bethnal Green"
Oral Evidence: "On the Friday morning....in Commercial Street near Mr Ringers Public House"

So any inconsistencies in the Lewis/Kennedy story might just be the fault of the witness rather than the reporter.

It is very good that you highlight the problem that there are even more mistakes in the statements of the Evening News. Thank you.

I see that our discussion has helped you to become a better source criticist and that you are in a learning process. But you are still not finished with your learning process, since you have made comparisons but not managed to reach the correct conclusion, which is:

There is no evidence for inconsistencies between the Lewis-statements in the police investigation and the inquest. In the inquest source you also find additions to her statements, and they are not in conflict with the police investigation source.

Make a source critical analysis of these two sources and you can even see that the "female" she is talking about in the police investigation is the same female she is talking about in the inquest source: "another young man with a woman passed along": that is the addition for ["talking to a female - deleted] in the police investigation source.

So my conclusion is that: There is no evidence that Sarah Lewis memory problems. But the people who did produce the Special Edition had both hearing problems and problems of understanding.

And, as everybody can see here, your first conclusion about an "independent confirmation" is wrong, your interpretations and conclusions about Sarah Lewis as a witness is wrong and so are your interpretations and conclusions about the sources.

I do not mean to say that you have done this on purpose, because I believe that you are an honest person trying to do your best. But your bias and lack of understanding of source criticism is making it hard for you.

One more thing; please don't continually waste my time Pierre.

School is not out yet, David. And please do not bite the hand that is teaching you. I understand that it feels uncomfortable for you to revise both your "Morris revisited" thread and your knowledge about source criticism, but I promise you that you will be a much more reliable history teller when you are finished with your education.

Kind regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Actually, there are terrible mistakes in this source.

Sara Lewis is mistaken for being a woman called ”Kennedy.” The reporter have made the mistake from a mishearing of ”Keylerīs”.

The reporter has got people and relations as well as names wrong. Here you have my data for it, the Evening Post writings are being compared to (without comments) the original police investigation source and the original inquest source:

.....

Conclusion: It is 100 percent certain that the reporter of the London Evening post has talked to Sarah Lewis without getting her name right. It is also 100 percent certain that the reporter and/or the journalist writing in the Evening Post has used his imagination together with the statements of Sara Lewis and has made very grave mistakes which you can see in the article.

You are therefore absolutely wrong when you are saying ”here we have an independent confirmation from an Evening Post reporter”

Please don't write nonsense to me, Pierre, under the heading of "You are wrong, David".

Firstly, the interview with Mrs Kennedy comes from the Evening Post of 10 November whereas the story about Kelly drinking in a public house was in the Evening Post of 9 November, so you are comparing stories from newspapers of different dates and we don't even know if we are talking about the same journalist.

Secondly, and in any event, your lack of knowledge and reading about the Ripper crimes lets you down again. Chris Scott, in a Ripperologist article of August 2013 (Rip 133), established that Sarah Lewis was born Sarah Jane Henrietta Lewis. Now all references to Kennedy are to "Mrs Kennedy".

Tell me Pierre, what happens to a woman's surname when she gets married? You do know it usually changes to the husband's name, right? So immediately we can see that Miss Lewis and Mrs Kennedy can be one and the same person. You will note that Sarah Lewis said in her statement that she stopped with the Keylers in Millers Court because "I had had a few words with my husband". So Sarah Lewis was married and, undoubtedly, her surname was no longer Lewis but her husband's name.

Now, Chris Scott established that Sarah Lewis was living with (but had not, in fact, officially married) a man named Joseph Gotheimer in 1888. So, as his common law wife, she could have been calling herself "Mrs Gotheimer". But an English woman speaking to journalists might not have wanted to call herself by a foreign sounding name yet she still wanted to have the respectability attached to the title of "Mrs" so, in my opinion, she called herself "Mrs Kennedy."

It's nothing to do with the journalist not hearing what she said or confusing Kennedy with "Keyler".

Thirdly, any inconsistencies in her reported story and the story she told the police and the coroner might just be due to her own memory and changes she made to her story. Just like Prater first said she heard two or three screams of murder in her statement then changed it just one. Remember that? I also give you some examples of inconsistencies between Lewis' statement and her oral evidence in the coroner's court:

1. Address

Statement: "No 34 Great Pearl Street"
Oral Evidence: "I live at 24 Great Powell Street"

2. Time

Statement: "Between 2 and 3 o'clock"
Oral Evidence (becomes more precise): "half past 2 on Friday morning...I know the time by having looked at Spitalfields Church Close as I passed it"

3. Suspicious Man Accosted Her While With Another Female

Statement: "on Wednesday evening last at Bethnal Green"
Oral Evidence: "On the Friday morning....in Commercial Street near Mr Ringers Public House"

So any inconsistencies in the Lewis/Kennedy story might just be the fault of the witness rather than the reporter.

One more thing; please don't continually waste my time Pierre.

[Pierre]

You are wrong, David.

You are the one who is confused Pierre, showing you know nothing about how a newspaper was put together in 1888.

The Evening Post report in its Special Edition of 9 November 1888 was a mixture of Agency reports (including one from the Press Association) and information obtained from its own representative in Whitechapel. So picking out inconsistencies in the report as a whole and concluding from those inconsistencies that "The journalist is confused" simply makes you look ridiculous, especially for someone who purports to be a "historian".

David,

You are absolutely wrong when you are saying ”here we have an independent confirmation from an Evening Post reporter” and "We now have confirmation that "two women" claimed to have seen Kelly drinking in a public house with a man at around 10am."

The journalist(s) of the London Evening Postīs Special Edition is guessing and getting events as well as people mixed up.

So this source is not reliable and you can therefore not draw the conclusion of ”indenpendent confirmation”.

Actually, there are terrible mistakes in this source.

Sara Lewis is mistaken for being a woman called ”Kennedy.” The reporter have made the mistake from a mishearing of ”Keylerīs”.

The reporter has got people and relations as well as names wrong. Here you have my data for it, the Evening Post writings are being compared to (without comments) the original police investigation source and the original inquest source:

London Eveing Post:

”Our representative has interviewed a woman named Kennedy, who was on the night of the murder staying with her parents at a house situated in the court immediately opposite the room in which the body of Mary Kelly was found. She states that about three o’clock on Friday morning she entered Dorset-street on her way to her parents’ house,”

POLICE INVESTIGATION WITH STATEMENT OF SARAH LEWIS:

”Between 2 and 3 oīclock this morning I came to stop with the Keylerīs, at No 2 Miller Court...”

London Evening Post:

”She noticed three persons at the corner of the street, near the Britannia public-house. There was a man - a young man, respectably dressed, and with a dark moustache – talking to a woman whom she did not know, and also a female...”

POLICE INVESTIGATION WITH STATMENT OF SARAH LEWIS:

”when I came up the Court there was a man standing over againat at the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset Street [”talking to a female” - deleted]

London Evening Post:

”She states that she did not retire to rest immediately she reached her parents’ abode, but sat up, and between half-past three and a quarter to four she heard a cry of “Murder!” in a woman’s voice proceed from the direction in which Mary Kelly’s room was situated.”

INQUEST STATEMENT OF SARAH LEWIS:

”I went to Mrs [”Kelsey`s” - deleted] Keylerīs I was awake all night in a chair I dozed I heard no noinse I woke up at about half past three – I sat awake till nearly five – a little before 4 I heard a female voice shout loudly one Murder! The sound seemed to come from the direction of deceaseds room...”

”London Evening Post:

As the cry was not repeated, she took no further notice of the circumstances until this morning,”

INQUEST STATEMENT OF SARAH LEWIS:

”I took no notice of it”

London Evening Post:

”She has since supplemented that statement by the following; “On Wednesday evening, about eight o’clock, me and my sister were in the neighbourhood of the Bethnal Green-road, when we were accosted by a very suspicious man,...”

”He invited me to accompany him into a lonely spot “as he was known about here, and there was a policeman looking at him.” She asserts that no policeman was in sight. He made several strange remarks and appeared to be agitated.

”He was very white in the face and made every endeavour to prevent them “looking him straight in the face.”

”He carried a black bag.”

INQUEST STATEMENT OF SARAH LEWIS:

”About Wednesday night at 8 o`clock I was going along Bethnal Green Road along with another female and a Gentleman passed us he turned back & spoke to us, he asked us to follow him, and asked one of us he did not mind which we refused, he went away, and came back & said if we would follow him he would treat us _ he asked us to go down a passage –.

”..he was short, paled faced,”

”... he had a bag...”

Conclusion: It is 100 percent certain that the reporter of the London Evening post has talked to Sarah Lewis without getting her name right. It is also 100 percent certain that the reporter and/or the journalist writing in the Evening Post has used his imagination together with the statements of Sara Lewis and has made very grave mistakes which you can see in the article.

You are therefore absolutely wrong when you are saying ”here we have an independent confirmation from an Evening Post reporter”,

So we can NOT conclude from this source that, as you say,: "We now have confirmation that "two women" claimed to have seen Kelly drinking in a public house with a man at around 10am."

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

No, David. You do not understand what I am saying.

But since you claim to understand more than i do, perhaps you are able to answer two simple questions?

1) Is the newspaper reporter (referred to as their representative) in the article the same person who created the statement about the "young man" McCarthy and his mother opening the front door and seeing a body "lying in the passage"?

2) Is he also the same person who came up with the statement of Kelly having been seen in a public-house, drinking with a man?

I understand what you are saying perfectly well, Pierre, as the following answers to your questions should make clear to you:

1. No, the source for that was a Press Association report (the one I have referred to as the third report of 9 November).

2. I wouldn't have used the phrase "came up with" myself but, yes, the Evening Post representative was the source for the sentence: "Two women aver that they saw her in a public-house, drinking with a man."

[David Orsam]

I think Abby makes a very good point about the fire.

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.

[Pierre]

You are the one who is confused Pierre, showing you know nothing about how a newspaper was put together in 1888.

The Evening Post report in its Special Edition of 9 November 1888 was a mixture of Agency reports (including one from the Press Association) and information obtained from its own representative in Whitechapel. So picking out inconsistencies in the report as a whole and concluding from those inconsistencies that "The journalist is confused" simply makes you look ridiculous, especially for someone who purports to be a "historian".

No, David. You do not understand what I am saying.

But since you claim to understand more than i do, perhaps you are able to answer two simple questions?

1) Is the newspaper reporter (referred to as their representative) in the article the same person who created the statement about the "young man" McCarthy and his mother opening the front door and seeing a body "lying in the passage"?

2) Is he also the same person who came up with the statement of Kelly having been seen in a public-house, drinking with a man?

[John G]

Hi David,

I think Abby makes a very good point about the fire. I agree it could have been lit for heat rather than light, however, this would be even more likely if Kelly was killed at night rather than, say, after 10:00am when it would presumably have been warmer.

You suggest that the killer may have mutilated Kelly whilst naked, i.e. to avoid getting covered in blood. However, if she was killed by JtR I just don't see him as being that organized. Thus, in the previous murders he clearly didn't take similar precautions-implying that he was unconcerned about the risk- even though Chapman may well have been murdered at a time when the neighbourhood would presumably have been busy with people leaving for work, and at a time when it was relatively light, which would have greatly increased the probability that someone would have noticed the blood and gore.

[GUT]

You are the one who is confused Pierre, showing you know nothing about how a newspaper was put together in 1888.

The Evening Post report in its Special Edition of 9 November 1888 was a mixture of Agency reports (including one from the Press Association) and information obtained from its own representative in Whitechapel. So picking out inconsistencies in the report as a whole and concluding from those inconsistencies that "The journalist is confused" simply makes you look ridiculous, especially for someone who purports to be a "historian".

Funny isn't it the "Great Historian" know nought about historical sources.

[David Orsam]

The reliability of this source is very low. First we have the "young man" McCarthy and his mother (!) opening the front door and seeing a body "lying in the passage" then we have Morris Lewis seeing "the woman" and thereafter it is "one man" who saw "Kelly".

The journalist is confused, he is guessing and he is getting events as well as people mixed up.

So we can NOT conclude from this source that: "We now have confirmation that "two women" claimed to have seen Kelly drinking in a public house with a man at around 10am."

You are the one who is confused Pierre, showing you know nothing about how a newspaper was put together in 1888.

The Evening Post report in its Special Edition of 9 November 1888 was a mixture of Agency reports (including one from the Press Association) and information obtained from its own representative in Whitechapel. So picking out inconsistencies in the report as a whole and concluding from those inconsistencies that "The journalist is confused" simply makes you look ridiculous, especially for someone who purports to be a "historian".

[Pierre]

I re-discovered some interesting new information yesterday while looking again at the report of the Kelly murder in the London Evening Post of 9 November 1888. It was in their "Special Edition" which was probably printed or sold at about 7pm. (I transcribed and posted the entire report in a thread "Kelly murder in the Evening Post" in the Victims/MJK section on 15.02.15 - http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8685).

At the end of its report about the Kelly murder, which included the Press Association story about Morris Lewis having seen "the woman leave the house and return with some milk", the following paragraph appears:

"The most extraordinary rumours are about as to the hour when the woman was last seen alive. One man has informed our representative that he was in the court at eight o’clock this morning when he saw Kelly go out for the purpose of fetching some milk. Two women aver that they saw her in a public-house, drinking with a man. This was between ten and half-past, but the persons residing in the public house state that they have no recollection of her, and the point is rendered the more difficult through Kelly not being generally known."

So here we have independent confirmation from an Evening Post reporter (not the Press Association rep) that he has personally spoken to a man - presumably Lewis - who said that he saw Kelly go out for some milk at 8am. Then he has also spoken to, or been told about, "Two women" who saw Kelly drinking in a public house with a man between 10 and 10.30 am.

We can then see that the reporter has spoken to people living in (presumably) the Britannia who told him they had no recollection of Kelly but he makes the point that identification was difficult because Kelly was not generally known. This might, perhaps, be the source of the information in Paul Begg's 2004 book cited by John G in the other thread in which the denial was said to have been in rather stronger terms.

Going back then to my previous post on the subject, why did the third press association report of 9 November, which included the Lewis sighting, not refer to the name of the victim? If Lewis had seen Kelly and told the reporter this, why was that information not included in the report?

Funnily enough, before seeing the Evening Post report yesterday, it had already occurred to me that there was no way that the Press Association would name the victim as Mary Jane Kelly on the basis of what its reporter had been told by a passing tailor. If they had got it wrong, and MJK was still very much alive, it would have been hugely embarrassing for that agency. So, even if Lewis had said, "Yes, I've been told it's Mary Jane Kelly who was murdered and I saw her going for milk at 8am", the P.A. reporter would probably not have included the name in his report out of an abundance of caution until he received official confirmation of the victim's name.

This would explain a couple of things. Firstly it would explain how the P.A. report was able to include the information in his third report that the victim was a 21 year old woman of genteel appearance who had recently separated from a man she was living.

It would also explain how Lewis was able to tell the LWN reporter that, at about 11am on Friday morning, he "heard that Kelly had been found in her room murdered." Initially I thought this might be him doing some historical revisionism and that he had initially only heard about the murder, finding out later that it was Kelly. But, in the period before the police arrived, no doubt the word did spread among local residents - from either McCarthy or Bowyer - that it was Kelly who had been found dead.

What are the consequences of all this?

Firstly, it makes it very odd that Lewis did not, apparently, mention his 8am sighting, for which he must have been reasonably famous, when he spoke to the LWN reporter. Even odder - and certainly suspicious - is that he did not mention the 10am sighting when he spoke to the Evening Post representative. For that reason, it does appear that he had adopted someone else's story when he spoke to the LWN reporter.

However, I'm not sure it changes very much. We now have confirmation that "two women" claimed to have seen Kelly drinking in a public house with a man at around 10am. Surely these women were the source for the story in the P.A. report and in the Globe about that. Neither of them can be Mrs Maxwell who never claimed to have seen Kelly drinking with anyone.

It should be noted, however, that Lewis is our only source that Kelly had been seen drinking in the Britannia as opposed to any other local public house.

With the women being unidentified it might explain why the police never found them. If they were prostitutes they might not have wanted to come forward or reveal their names to the press. Perhaps this is why Lewis told their story for them (???).

The reliability of this source is very low. First we have the "young man" McCarthy and his mother (!) opening the front door and seeing a body "lying in the passage" then we have Morris Lewis seeing "the woman" and thereafter it is "one man" who saw "Kelly".

The journalist is confused, he is guessing and he is getting events as well as people mixed up.

So we can NOT conclude from this source that: "We now have confirmation that "two women" claimed to have seen Kelly drinking in a public house with a man at around 10am."

Pierre

[David Orsam]

Hi David
If Kelly was killed in the day time morning-what do you make of the burnt clothes in the fireplace?
Who do you think threw them in and why?
And when? It must have been some time after 10:00am,no?

Hi Abby, there's got to be a chance that the killer mutilated Kelly while naked so as to keep blood off his clothes. Abberline assumed the clothing was burnt for the purposes of light but it could equally have been for heat. If the murder was committed some time after 10:00am then, yes, assuming that Kelly didn't do it herself to keep warm during the night, it must have been done some time after 10:00am.

[Abby Normal]

Hi David
If Kelly was killed in the day time morning-what do you make of the burnt clothes in the fireplace?
Who do you think threw them in and why?
And when? It must have been some time after 10:00am,no?