Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[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]

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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Malcolm X]

.


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.



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.

unfortunately i cant check the facts as well as you, because i dont have the ripper books any more since my father died, i have to search here instead, and this website always was pretty bad compared to a good book.

yes, we've talked about this so much over the years and this time of death is very hard to pin down, but GH might have blown it because Abberline believed Bond and went for a 2am murder, thus dismissed GH as a timewaster

but later Abberline maybe switched back to 4am, but kept quiet about it, because it's a bit embarassing, no idea, but if so this puts GH back into the frame.

Abberline dismisses him as a liar, but like us he must be thinking, ``can he be JTR instead`` ... he must have thought this, the answer is GH was nothing like what he thought JTR was, because unfortunately we have no idea at all, only he knew! ... so dont expect GH to look like Sailor boy or broadshoulders

i think Wickerman has this about right here, for sure, but this only shows that Abberline was wrong, but it makes little difference with regards to GH

COX = telling the truth yes

.

[DVV]

Hey guys, are you implying Diddles wasn't a reliable witness ?
I'm off.

[Garry Wroe]

... I'm far from sure the killer had little to fear from Lawende.

Whoever he was, Dave, the killer is likely to have followed the case closely in the newspapers. He would thus have been aware of both the accuracy of the Lawende description and the unlikelihood of Lawende being able to identify him. My suspicion is that the description was not especially accurate – that it was more the product of impression rather than direct recollection. In fact, if the description really was awry, it could have been positively beneficial to the killer.

[Garry Wroe]

Bang on Jon ... And as Hutchinson places himself, at that monment in time, as the last person to see Kelly alive means he would have been interviewed as a suspect, hence Abberlines 'interrogation'.

Sorry Monty, but since Abberline initially believed Hutchinson’s story, he would have regarded Astrakhan as the last person to see Kelly alive, not Hutchinson.

As for Abberline’s ‘interrogation’ of Hutchinson, it was standard procedure at the time, a process used as a means of weeding out the time-wasters from genuine witnesses. Violenia, as you may recall, was never considered a suspect, yet underwent an interrogation lasting several hours. Thus Abberline’s words should not be used to infer that Hutchinson was suspected of anything.

It would seem Abberline could find no discrepncies during this interview which, alas, is missing … I feel if this report had survived, there wouldn't be this intense posting on Hutchinson.

It did survive and was submitted to Scotland Yard along with Hutchinson’s witness statement.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

So you're saying that when Anderson stated on more than one occasion that the "only person who ever had a good view of the murderer" was a Jewish man, he wasn't being entirely truthful; because there was another, arguably better witness who was neither Jewish nor male, who would have been ideal for the task of viewing the suspect if only she could be traced? In which case, I have to wonder how Anderson was able to reconcile his belief in Blotchy's culpability with his supposed conviction that 24-year-old Jewish Aaron Kosminski was responsible!

All the best,
Ben