|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Maurice Lewis
Casebook Message Boards: Witnesses: Specific Witnesses:
Maurice Lewis
Author: adam wood
Friday, 18 December 1998 - 12:01 pm |        | It's generally believed that the 'Dan' Maurice Lewis claimed to have seen drinking with Mary Kelly in the Horn of Plenty was Joe Barnett's brother.
It struck me that this could have been John McCarthy's brother, Daniel, who was aged 24 in 1888. While it has been suggested that something may have been going on between Kelly and John McCarthy, explaining her ability to run up huge rent debts, I would suggest it would be his younger brother, although married to Ann in the 1891 census, who would have caught Kelly's eye.
Comments? |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Friday, 18 December 1998 - 01:46 pm | | It could be possible (anything, of course, COULD be possible in the murky world of the Ripper). I have only been able to find two mentions of a "Dan" in connection with Kelly:
1. A Press Association report of November 10 states that this was Barnett's nickname (Bruce Paley, in his "JTR: the Simple Truth" believes this to be a confusion with Barnett's brother)
2. Barnett himself told the "Star" of November 10 that he had asked his brother to speak with Kelly, and that she had met with Dan on November 8, though it is unclear where this meeting took place.
Christopher-Michael |
Author: A.M.P.
Saturday, 19 December 1998 - 06:35 am | | Nice thought, Adam. I too have considered the possibility that "Danny" was Daniel McCarthy and not Joe Barnett. Especially since MJK's other companions in the Horn Of Plenty that night were said to be four women, one called Julia. Most of the residents of Miller's Court seen to have been women, and very likely full or part-time prostitutes, so it is possible that they were MJK's drinking companions too. This "Julia" could have been Julia Venturney of 1 Miller's Court, or maybe the Julia who Kelly brought home and who caused the rumpus with Barnett. (Perhaps they were one and the same).
However I question the value of this whole sighting anyway. Maurice Lewis seems a suspect witness to me - several reasons for thinking it.
1). He claimed to have known Kelly for 5 years, which is possible, but that pre-dates her living in Miller's Court by a long time. Where exactly was MJK living in 1883?
2). Like Caroline Maxwell, he also claimed to have seen Kelly the next morning, Most people believe that she was dead by then.
3). As far as I am aware, none of these drinking companions came forwards to the police afterwards.
4). He describes Danny as working in an orange market. I don't know if this fits with Daniel McCarthy's occupation in 1888 or not. By 1891 he was running a chandler's shop from 36 Dorset Street, competing with his brother who was still at number 27. |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Tuesday, 22 December 1998 - 01:30 pm | | Hi All,
A.M.P. writes:
Maurice Lewis seems a suspect witness to me - several reasons for thinking it.
I would like to add the following to the list posted by A.M.P. From the Illustrated Police News of 17 November:
"He was positive that on going in he saw Mary Jane Kelly drinking with some other people, but is not certain whether there was a man amongst them."
So, Lewis claimed he positively ID'd MJK, yet could not discern even the gender of her companions. IMO, it seems kind of inconsistent to notice enough detail of a person's appearance to make a positive ID, yet fail to notice something as glaringly obvious as gender. Assuming he was telling the truth and not simply looking for his 15 minutes of fame, the lack of observation/attention to detail makes him a poor witness.
Cheers,
Jim |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Tuesday, 22 December 1998 - 02:39 pm | | Two small notes to add to AMPs excellent post:
1. Where was Mary Jane Kelly in 1883? We do not know. To the best of our knowledge (admittedly slim), she came to London circa 1884, and went to work in a West End brothel - so she said. If Lewis claimed to have known MJK for 5 years, then we can posit one of three possibilities:
- he really had known her since 1883, and thus either knew her when she first came to London or knew her origins;
- he was lying;
- he was using "five years" as an offhand remark because it was a common number that came to hand. I say that simply because people (consciously or not) tend to think of numbers in their multiplication series - 2,4,6 or 5,10,15 - when using them to denote an amount or time off the top of their head. He might have known MJK 3 or 4 years, but in spreading himself to a Gentleman of the Press might have clucked, pulled on his pipe and said "oi've known 'er for foive years, oi did."
2. What was Dan McCarthy doing in 1888? I don't know. I do know that Daniel Barnett was working at Billingsgate Market, and Joseph had sold oranges on occasion after being let go from Billingsgate. Perhaps, as Jim tends to show, Mr Lewis was a bit fuddled when trying to recollect things, and had trouble keeping the Barnetts straight.
CMD |
Author: Oracle
Wednesday, 23 December 1998 - 02:27 am | | All the speculation and theorising as regards Maurice Lewis must be viewed in light of the fact that this whole story is an unsubstantiated press report. The crucial factor tending to cast doubt on the whole thing is the fact that he WAS NOT a witness at Kelly's inquest. If he had indeed seen her after the supposed time of her death then his would be most important evidence, and would have most certainly been required at the inquest. Unlike Hutchinson, his story had appeared in the press prior to the inquest. It does seem another example of an early and erroneous press report involving mistaken 'facts.'
It is highly unlikely that if Lewis had seen Kelly drinking in the Britannia (which couldn't have been much closer to Miller's Court as it was right on the corner of Dorset Street with Commercial Street), several others who knew her, including the Ringers, would not have seen her also. This tends, along with the fact that Lewis was NOT a witness at the inquest, to indicate that the story is erroneous. Certainly it cannot warrant any serious speculation. |
Author: avala
Friday, 25 December 1998 - 06:38 am | | Well put,Oracle!With an historian's perspective.Splendid.
Best,
avala |
|
|
|
|
