Open or Closed-Probabilities

[Sam Flynn]

Originally Posted by perrymason

How difficult would it be... based on Hutchinson being eventually discredited...

To be clear, Mike, it was Hutchinson's story that was reported to have been "discredited". To say that Hutchinson was discredited puts an entirely different - and possibly false - perspective on the matter, in that it seems to deprecate his character. That his story was "now discredited" might well mean that it was simply no longer believed, and that may or may not have had anything to do with the character of the man himself.

[algernon]

Merely wondering here,exactly what sequence of events would need to be in place to envisage the body on the bed being anyone other than Mary Kelly?
To enable Kelly to escape and change her identity ,being thought dead? If so-to escape what exactly?And if that was the case ,then surely far from being the victim,Kelly would ,indeed be more likely to have been the murderer,or at best deeply implicated.
I guess its an interesting,if somewhat unorthodox way of looking at things,to say the least perhaps.

[perrymason]

Originally Posted by Sam Flynn

We do not know when the other official IDs occurred either, but that they happened are documented in the police records, and the police had procedures to follow. And - for the umpteenth time - such procedures would not have entailed playing "peek-a-boo" through a broken window pane occluded by a makeshift curtain.

Hi again Sam,

Since this crime scene investigation may well be the first of its kind, a scene completely locked down so forensics could be done with the scene just as the killer left it...locked door and all.....there may have been no "procedures" as such. Perhaps this time something different was done for the IDs...since the lock down itself was a new thing for them. Mary was not moved until nearly 5pm.

On your point on Hutchinson, your correct, his story was said to be discreditted....it didnt mention whether they thought that meant he was mistaken or a liar....but at least Carrie was told she was likely mistaken to her face. We dont know what they thought of his character.

Best regards

[Sam Flynn]

Originally Posted by perrymason

Since this crime scene investigation may well be the first of its kind

I don't think so, somehow.

a scene completely locked down so forensics could be done

What "forensics" would they have carried out in 1888?

with the scene just as the killer left it...locked door and all.....

But the body WAS removed to a mortuary on the afternoon of its discovery - they didn't just seal her in there and whip her out before the inquest started.

there may have been no "procedures" as such.

There are many, many documented examples of witnesses being taken to mortuaries to officially identify corpses - before, during and after the Whitechapel Murders. I've yet to hear of too many occasions where the "next of kin" was put through the ordeal of identifying a mangled body at the blood-soaked scene of the crime.

Mike, dear chap, I wish you'd drop this increasingly surreal crusade.

[perrymason]

All I can tell you is that Glenn Andersson, who has studied hundreds if not more historical murders, told me that he believed that this may have been the first crime scene lockdown of its kind....and I can see that. The doctor decided he didnt need to enter immediately after glancing in the window, and so they waited for photographers, Im assuming Sketch artists, they tell us they waited for Bloodhounds that were in fact not on call anymore, both were out of town....and they entered with the mandate of recording the disposition of the room and its contents, including Mary, for some hours. Mary was in the room until around 4:30....they didnt enter until 1:30...so thats 3 hours on top of the 2 hours they had been waiting in the courtyard and taking notes and interviews. Just because they didnt use fingerprinting or hair and fiber analysis or DNA, they still apparently had "forensics" in the form of recordings...the camera....the pen and paper.....and they did take photos of Marys eyes apparently.

How long did they leave any other Canonical body in place before effectively altering the crime scene by moving it?

Clearly in these cases, Marys murder scene was left untouched for much longer after its discovery than any other......and that was to maintain crime scene integrity....one key facet of modern crime scene forensics.

All the best G.

[Sam Flynn]

Originally Posted by perrymason

and they did take photos of Marys eyes apparently.

The only contemporary reference to taking photographs of the eyes came in response to a question put by a juror to Bagster Phillips at Annie Chapman's inquest, and he dismissed the suggestion. It occurs to me that Walter Dew - who enshrined the "Kelly's eye-photograph" story in Ripper lore - either misremembered that exchange or tacked the story onto his account of the Kelly inquiry to spice it up. The "taking photographs of Kelly's eyes" story is, I firmly believe, yet another Ripperological myth.

How long did they leave any other Canonical body in place before effectively altering the crime scene by moving it?

Kelly was in bits! Of course it was going to take longer to deal with that crime-scene - and, to reiterate (I do a lot of reiteration these days) the body WAS removed on the afternoon it was found, and taken to the mortuary. That was nearly THREE DAYS before the inquest - plenty of time to make it half decent for witnesses, including next of kin, to make a formal identification.

Clearly in these cases, Marys murder scene was left untouched for much longer after its discovery than any other......and that was to maintain crime scene integrity....

And also because she was in bits, which meant that the doctors would have required longer to make an on-site examination. Famously, of course, the police were waiting for the dogs to arrive in addition. They certainly didn't keep the corpse there in order to force Joe Barnett's face to the window for any "peek-a-boo" identification to take place. (He said, reiterating again...)

one key facet of modern crime scene forensics.

... which they certainly didn't have at their disposal in 1888.

[perrymason]

I guess either you or I need a break, because when I cannot get Sam Flynn to use an open mind, common sense, logic and his quite able mind to see clearly what is being contended....then either my confidence in my ability to formulate an understandable post should be shaken, or in reality my opinion of the of the poster isnt quite accurate.

Ill assume its my inability to make an argument that cannot be refuted easily....although I know damn well that I have made such points that have been sound in evidence and logic, but have been refuted with opinions anyway by you and others......so.....time to re-direct some energy.....ciao for a while amigo.

All the best Sam.

[Garry Wroe]

I’m not so sure about the retinal photographs being mythical, Sam. Certainly, in an internal memo dated 5 October, Henry Matthews inquired: ‘Have any of the doctors examined the eyes of the murdered women?’ Dr Phillips may have dismissed the idea of ocular afterimagery, but you can bet your bottom dollar that an investigative suggestion proffered by the Home Secretary would have superseded the scepticism of a lowly divisional surgeon.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

it didnt mention whether they thought that meant he was mistaken or a liar

Not explicitly, although an interesting extract from the Echo of 13th November may provide a clue:

Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Originally Posted by Garry Wroe

I’m not so sure about the retinal photographs being mythical, Sam. Certainly, in an internal memo dated 5 October, Henry Matthews inquired: ‘Have any of the doctors examined the eyes of the murdered women?’ Dr Phillips may have dismissed the idea of ocular afterimagery, but you can bet your bottom dollar that an investigative suggestion proffered by the Home Secretary would have superseded the scepticism of a lowly divisional surgeon.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

Nonetheless, there are no contemporary records to Kelly's eyes having been photographed, Garry. We know about the breaking down of her door, we know of the melted kettle, we know of the time wasted waiting for the dogs, we know of the sifting of the embers of the fire... even of Abberline's endorsement of our beloved Hutch's testimony. Yet there's not a sniff about ocular photography being used on Kelly anywhere, until Walter "Cuttings" Dew writes his undoubtedly spiced-up memoirs. "I was first on the scene... 'For God's sake Dew, don't look!".... "I fell in the awfulness on that floor", indeed! Was he limbo-dancing under the bed?