Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[harry]

Dave,
I quite agree that Cox was probably telling the truth as she understood it. What if in her interview with police it was asked of her could the man have had red hair and blotchy appearance and she answered 'Yes'.She would not be lying.Read her statement carefully.To her,looking from a distance,and reciting from memory,it could have been suggested he was bald,and she would probably have agreed.She just wouldn't have been sure.It has been stressed before,that colours,especially red or variation's of it,are hard to distinguish in the conditions that prevailed.Her situation is akin to Schwartz.Both followed persons appearing intoxicated,but while Cox was still some distance behind at the crucial time,Schwartz had narrowed the distance to a point of near contact.Yet both gave specific details of appearance.Maybe some details were suggessted ra ther than observed and remembered.While on Cox,it is oossible,bearing on what she is reported to have said,for me to accept that perhaps the companion of Kelly never even entered her room,though theres no question he entered the court with her.

[DVV]

Unfortunately Dew seems to have overlooked one situation,That is,the midnight companion could well have been Hutchinson.His story an attempt to divert attention from himself.

Hi Harry, I see your point and the fact that Astrakhan diverted attention from Blotchy can't be denied.
But there is no reason to believe Cox had fabricated the carroty moustache and the blotches.

[DVV]

Hi Jon

I think if you look back Dave, the claim was made that "Abberline was not told".
As the relevant document which will include such a claim does not exist this claim is false.

The anti-Hutchinson 'clique' rely on bogus claims like that. I do not need to prove he was told, only that the claim he was not told is not provable, not demonstrable, therefore bogus.

Regards, Jon S.

Great.
For once, we have both the statement and Abberline's report and you are telling me that there is someting missing and that my reasoning is "bogus" ?

For the last time, WE HAVE THE REPORT in which the Sunday sighting should have been mentioned.

It's time to realize how important would have been the Petticoat Lane episode in the prospect of identifying and catching the man, which was the very concern of Abberline's report.
It meant the man lived in the neighbourhood...and had not shaven his moustache yet.

[harry]

Untill Hutchinson came forward,the midnight companion of Kelly was undoubtedly the the prime suspect,and subject of a concentrated attempt to find him.It was this person who benifitted most by the introduction of a later companion of Kelly.If the latter person did not exist,could therefor not have met Kelly and gone to her room,then suspicion swings again to the midnight companion.Ditto if Hutchinson had got the dates wrong.So one can see why Walter Dew might have come to his reasoning.Unfortunately Dew seems to have overlooked one situation,That is,the midnight companion could well have been Hutchinson.His story an attempt to divert attention from himself.

[Wickerman]

Jon - I must have missed something huge here, obviously.

Don't feel bad, so had I.

Where is the evidence that Anderson ever offered an opinion on Bond's suggested time of death for Kelly, ....

Anderson asked Bond for his opinion, Bond sent it in writing on the 10th so Anderson had in his hands Kelly's probable time of death.
- What do you think he would do with it?
- What impact would this have on the course of the investigation?
- Any point in pursuing Hutchinson's suspect any more?

let alone "realized that Bond may have erred" at some later date? You seem to be suggesting that Anderson wished to focus the investigation on Cox's evidence purely as a result of Bond's medical opinion (with Blotchy as the presumed ripper), and yet we know full well that Anderson's Jewish male witness could not have been Mary Cox.

He did have a Jewish witness, two, Schwartz & Lawende.
Even by the time Sadler's case came around, if you compare the task of locating a prostitute somewhere across the East End as opposed to a business man like Lawende with a known address, guess who gets a knock at the door.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

yes Bond moved the time of murder back to maybe 2am and thus before when we say that GH killed her at 4am, i quote below

``Quoting from his annexed report of the autopsy he says: “Rigor Mortis had set in, but increased during the process of the examination. From this it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death…”

Actually Malcolm, I was thinking of something a little more specific:

“The body was comparatively cold at 2 o'clock........It is therefore pretty certain that the woman must have been dead about 12 hours and the partly digested food would indicate: that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken, so one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of her murder”

So long as Anderson puts faith in Bond's opinion, both Swanson and Abberline have little room for manouver. Hutchinson claiming to see Kelly when she was already dead (Bond), means they must relegate Hutchinson's claim in favour of Cox's.
What do they have to enable them to argue with the boss? - nothing.

They already have one case of mistaken identity in Maxwell, so now they have another in Hutchinson?

BUT I HAVE A FEW POINTS :-

1.....Is Bond right or could this still be at 4am, because as he said, this isn't an exact science, especially back in 1888.

Absolutely, Bond could easily have been mistaken, and probably was. But, we are looking for a reason for the change of focus in the case and this is exactly the kind of situation that would cause such a change.

2.....Did GH walk off at 3am to return later..... or did he break in at 3am instead, because he could quite easily have done so, he could also have been invited in at 3am as a paying client !

3....Did MJK die even earlier, back at 2 to 3am, thus more likely Blotchy face?..... i have no idea

4....i quote:- ``it is difficult to say the exact time that has elapsed since death``

5.....we still have the cry of ``oh murder`` at 4am, it could be wrong, but it's still hard to dismiss outright

A random cry of murder can be put down to anything, it will not trump a medically assigned time of death.
The women already tell us they hear it often.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

...as the investigation wound down, over the years, Anderson realized that Bond may have erred. That Kelly had actually died later around 4:00 am

Jon - I must have missed something huge here, obviously.

Where is the evidence that Anderson ever offered an opinion on Bond's suggested time of death for Kelly, let alone "realized that Bond may have erred" at some later date? You seem to be suggesting that Anderson wished to focus the investigation on Cox's evidence purely as a result of Bond's medical opinion (with Blotchy as the presumed ripper), and yet we know full well that Anderson's Jewish male witness could not have been Mary Cox. Whatever the reason for the prioritization of Cox's evidence, therefore, it cannot have had anything to do with an Andersonian insistence that her suspect was likely to have been the ripper on the basis of Bond's suggested time of death. This would have made a complete nonsense of his later claims regarding a Jewish man who was supposed to have been the "only person who ever got a good view of the murderer", and unfortunately, conjuring up a wholly unsupported scenario in which Anderson "realized that Bond may have erred" at some unspecified later date doesn't convincingly surmount that problem.

No, it must be considered a safe bet that Cox's evidence was prioritized for other, more realistic, more mainstream reasons, i.e. being considered reliable by the police, appearing at the inquest, not being discredited as probable fiction etc etc.

All the best,
Ben

[Malcolm X]

Hutchinson was never dismissed as unreliable.
Read Bond's murder analysis, you'll see the most likely reason for the shift in the investigation. It had nothing to do with Hutchinson's veracity. Anderson would believe the sky was red if Bond told him so.
One dead body and one firm medical conclusion as to time of death and any singular contrary witness testimony is left in the dust.

Regards, Jon S.

yes Bond moved the time of murder back to maybe 2am and thus before when we say that GH killed her at 4am, i quote below

``Quoting from his annexed report of the autopsy he says: “Rigor Mortis had set in, but increased during the process of the examination. From this it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death…” So if the autopsy started at 2:00 p.m. and rigor mortis was setting into Mary Kelly’s body, we can figure that rigor mortis would probably peak at about 3:00 p.m. or a little later. If we use the general rule that rigor mortis peaks in about 12 hours, then we can say that Mary Kelly probably died sometime after 3:00 or 3:30 a.m.``

BUT I HAVE A FEW POINTS :-

1.....Is Bond right or could this still be at 4am, because as he said, this isn't an exact science, especially back in 1888.

2.....Did GH walk off at 3am to return later..... or did he break in at 3am instead, because he could quite easily have done so, he could also have been invited in at 3am as a paying client !

3....Did MJK die even earlier, back at 2 to 3am, thus more likely Blotchy face?..... i have no idea

4....i quote:- ``it is difficult to say the exact time that has elapsed since death``

5.....we still have the cry of ``oh murder`` at 4am, it could be wrong, but it's still hard to dismiss outright

[Wickerman]

No, Jon. There is nothing missing here.

The record of the interrogation, questions, answers, step by step, does not exist. Abberline only offers to forward the original voluntary statement to his superiors, not his interrogation file.
What you refer to as a 'report' is only a summary of the days events.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Jon, Neil, any evidence Hutch told Abberline that he had seen the man again in Petticoat Lane ?
It's pretty clear he did not.

I think if you look back Dave, the claim was made that "Abberline was not told".
As the relevant document which will include such a claim does not exist this claim is false.

The anti-Hutchinson 'clique' rely on bogus claims like that. I do not need to prove he was told, only that the claim he was not told is not provable, not demonstrable, therefore bogus.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

ok lets say Abberline interrogated him at length, what does this tell you about the rediculous description of LA DE DA, because this looks totally wrong regardless, if he interrogated him ``so well`` in the first place, why did he dismiss him as unreliable later on.

no sorry, none of this makes sense !

Hutchinson was never dismissed as unreliable.
Read Bond's murder analysis, you'll see the most likely reason for the shift in the investigation. It had nothing to do with Hutchinson's veracity. Anderson would believe the sky was red if Bond told him so.
One dead body and one firm medical conclusion as to time of death and any singular contrary witness testimony is left in the dust.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

To bolster his claims that he could identify what he looked like and where he lived and increase his chances of being seen as an important witness and increase his chances of being paid by the newspapers and police.

He practically rubbed noses with the guy, he didn't need to make further claims. If he appears too confident the reporter will simply say, "come on then lets find him, and you'll never need to work again" .

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

Abberline interrogated (his words) Hutchinson but the record of this interrogation does not exist, it has not survived. You have been telling me that Abberline was not told about the Sunday morning, yet the document which would include this issue does not exist.
Regards, Jon S.

No, Jon. There is nothing missing here.

Abberline interrogated Hutch, took notes, and from these notes wrote the report we all know, and that we all can read and re-read (Sourcebook pp 377-378).

Read it again, then, and you'll see it was the perfect place to refer to the Sunday sighting.

Again, it wouldn't have been completely off-topic in the statement either...

Nuff said. It's up to you to believe Hutch had met the Ripper twice within three days - and still, without coming forward.

But you cannot suspect Abberline of being so gullible without evidence, can you ?

[Wickerman]

Walter Dew, an officer who was actively engaged on the case, not only rejected Hutchinson’s account, .......

Walter Dew does not at all support your flawed hypothesis.
Dew makes it abundantly clear he thinks Hutchinson made a mistake, "not necessarily as to a person, but as to date and time".

Does that sound like he is calling Hutchinson a liar?

Also:
"And if Mrs Maxwell was mistaken, is it not probable that George Hutchinson erred also? This, without reflecting in any way on either witness, is my considered view"

Does that sound like he is calling Hutchinson a liar?

......he went further and stated it as his belief that Blotchy was the killer.

Which supports what I wrote recently, Bond's medical report to Anderson caused the change in focus for the Met. Swanson had to shift gears and relegate the Hutchinson investigation in favour of the Blotchy investigation.
The police do not drop anything, they merely changed priorities, that is all.
Dew's opinion only supports such a conclusion.

Anderson, too, undermined Hutchinson’s credibility when asserting that the Jewish witness used to make the Seaside Home identification was ‘the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer’.

Correct, as the investigation wound down, over the years, Anderson realized that Bond may have erred. That Kelly had actually died later around 4:00 am, and Hutchinson left the scene one full hour before she was killed. Therefore Hutchinson's suspect was not necessarily the killer.
If Anderson still thought Blotchy was the killer, Cox would have been his "witness".

Agreed, Jon. And this selectivity of ‘evidence’ explains why your arguments continually fall on deaf ears.

I am not looking for support. I merely demonstrate where these flawed theories come undone.

Would you care to substantiate this statement?

Ok, maybe I was wrong there. Maybe Jack the Ripper just stood over the bodies waiting for the police to arrive.

Given that Lawende openly admitted that he would be unlikely to recognize Eddowes’ companion again, the description he provided was almost certainly inaccurate. The killer thus had little to fear from Lawende.

If Hutchinson fit the description he wouldn't just walk into a police station and pretend to be the last man to see the murdered woman alive. He is an automatic suspect, and he looks like the previous killer?

You're joking of course.

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

Jon, Neil, any evidence Hutch told Abberline that he had seen the man again in Petticoat Lane ?
It's pretty clear he did not.