Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[Ben]

I am stunned Ben, you are actually expecting to sway an argument by introducing a newspaper "opinion" as fact.

It wasn't a newspaper opinion, Jon. It was a newspaper reporting the opinion of the police as a collective, and that opinion was that the evidence from the inquest was sufficient to infer a later time of death than that proffered by Dr. Bond. Nothing to do with "my theory", I'm afraid. What the article demonstrates is that, contrary to your suggestion, the police did not place all their investigative eggs in the 1.00am-2.00am TOD basket purely as a result of Bond's notes, and/or Anderson's imaginary insistence that Bond must be correct. It also establishes that neither Bond nor Anderson had anything to do with the prioritization of Cox's evidence.

An estimated time of death was mentioned based "entirely" on the estimated time of hearing the cry of "murder".

Yes, and so nothing at all to do with Anderson insisting on Bond's time of death being correct.

The Star observed the following on the 15th November:

"As we have already said, the only piece of information of any value which has yet transpired is the description given by the widow Cox of a man - short, stout, with a blotchy face and a carroty moustache - who at midnight on Thursday went with the murdered woman into her room."

So Bond's TOD is rejected (13th Nov), but the police are still prioritizing Cox's evidence. 'Nuff said, surely?

Best regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.

..... Where are you getting a "short carroty moustache" from, incidentally?

I was using the Official Inquest from the Corp. of London. This is also the one used by Stewart in his "Ultimate" p.371.

I don't know if you've had a chance to read the 13th November Star article I've provided, but it effectively dispenses with any suggestion that the police supported Bond's suggested time of death at Anderson's behest. It instead demonstrates that the police supported a later time of death in accordance with the evidence of Prater, Lewis etc.

Another problem with the Star is they are typically "a day late and a dollar short", if you know what I mean.
They are a little slow on the uptake.

Take for example the Echo who picked up on the "induced" story on the 13th, so we can tell the police had already changed their focus sometime earlier in the morning of the 13th or late evening of the 12th.
Yet, the next day, the 14th, The Star, full of bluster gave us the words of their windfall witness, Hutchinson:
"..This morning we have a fuller statement respecting the well-dressed man..."

Their "jackpot" witness is by now old news, meaningless hype.
I can imagine the desk sergeant at Commercial St. had a chuckle. After the police had shifted focus they gave the Star reporter the location where Hutchinson lived.
The police now threw a red-herring to those antagonistic yahoo's down at the Star, send them off on the wrong track.

Anyhow, to get back on track, to your point.
Yes, I have read the Star 13th edition, the only place the police are mentioned is with respect to Mrs Maxwell. And contrary to what the Star writes, Dr. Phillips does not give an opinion on time of death at the Inquest.
The Star is again, wrong.

Sadly Ben the police do not support a later time of death. As I said, all you have is the Star theorizing again.
Care to try another paper?

You must be really scraping the bottom of the barrel now..


Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

The Star observed the following on the 15th November:

"As we have already said, the only piece of information of any value which has yet transpired is the description given by the widow Cox of a man - short, stout, with a blotchy face and a carroty moustache - who at midnight on Thursday went with the murdered woman into her room."

So Bond's TOD is rejected (13th Nov), but the police are still prioritizing Cox's evidence. 'Nuff said, surely?

Best regards,
Ben

What are you saying?
The police initially prioritized Hutchinson up to the 13th, then shifted to Cox.
How does your above quote contest Bond's ToD?

Sounds like you are confirming Bond.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Cox's inquest evidence was reproduced in a great many papers, and to my knowledge, all of them recounted either a "thick" or "full" moustache. She didn't contradict herself at all in that respect.

There is nothing remotely problematic about the Star's report. They were not offering their own opinion, but merely passing on the findings of the police. As has been noted earlier, you seem perfectly willing to endorse the very worst of the press poo as accurate, whilst dismissing the far more reasonable press offerings that at least cite a police source. The Star had shown considerable initiative in being the only newspaper to track down Israel Schwartz, and in the case of the Kelly murder, they were at pains to create a distinction between their own musings and collective police wisdom.

Sadly Ben the police do not support a later time of death.

Errrr...yes, they did.

They supported the later time of death inferred by the evidence of Prater and Cox, and most assuredly not the earlier TOD suggested by Bond. This was reported by the Star, who didn't lie for the sheer thrill of it. The Star never claimed that Phillips had offered his opinion as to time of death the inquest, contrary to your accusation.

How does your above quote contest Bond's ToD?

Because the Star inform us that the police supported a later time of death on 13th, but reassure us on on 15th that they still prioritized her evidence. They placed investigative focus on Mary Cox in spite of Bond's time of death, not because of it, as you were suggesting earlier.

You must be really scraping the bottom of the barrel now

Well, there's the Daily News, which spectacularly ballsed up Sarah Lewis' evidence, or there's the Morning Advertiser, the pub trade rag. The sky's the limit, really.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
Cox's inquest evidence was reproduced in a great many papers, and to my knowledge, all of them recounted either a "thick" or "full" moustache. She didn't contradict herself at all in that respect.

I'm anticipating Malcolm jumping down your throat for using unsolicited newspaper reports
I guess I'll have a long wait...

There is nothing remotely problematic about the Star's report. They were not offering their own opinion, but merely passing on the findings of the police.

Thats the issue here Ben, they were not giving police opinion, and you cannot show they were, only you insisting they were, and that is not sufficient.
The police were not talking to them, remember? Thats what they complained about, their own words, not mine.

They supported the later time of death inferred by the evidence of Prater and Cox, and most assuredly not the earlier TOD suggested by Bond.

At the conclusion of the Inquest the police only had a rough estimate for the cry of "murder" at around 4:00 am., - Lewis "shortly before", and Prater, "shortly after".

Cox was the best witness for a suspect at 11:45 pm.

11:45 pm to 4:00 am is a wide span of time, unrelated events, even Sugden points that out.
The police had nothing to work with.

Then appeared Hutchinson. The police make him witness No.1, which lasted for something like 24 hrs?
With no resolution to the Time of Death from Macdonald, Anderson came to the 'rescue'.

Bond's report is not open to debate. No-one sat down and voted whether to accept or reject it, where did you come up with that?

Scotland Yard is not a democracy Ben!

Warren requested Bond's analysis for the police to use. It was in Anderson's hands before the 13th, which is when the Met, shifted gears from Hutchinson back to Cox.

Are we even on the same page?

Regards, Jon S.

[harry]

How long Hutchinson waited is not known.By the evidence of the only person who can be believed (Lewis),anything just upwards of about a minute or so,the time it would have taken her to walk from the corner of Dorset Street to Millers Court.I am of course allowing that had he arrived while she was walking that distance,she would have observed movement.
Jon,
The short answer to your last question to me,how could a thin brown moustache grow into a bushy red one? is that two different suggestions were made by two different persons,to two different receptive witnesses.
Walter Dew did not declare a belief in a wrong day situation.His statement clearly shows that a suspicion of the midnight companion required that Hatchinson and Maxwell had to be wrong,He did not say he believed they were. We could all say the same thing,but as I said before,Dew seems not to consider that the midnight companion and Hutchinson could be one and the same.

[DVV]

Hi Jon

Sounds like you are confirming Bond.
Regards, Jon S.

Nobody can confirm Bond on this count, even not Bond himself.
He didn't know at what time Kelly had her last meal, and you don't know either.
His estimation of MJK ToD is therefore baseless, and the investigators would have been stupid to dismiss or favour a witness accordingly. Cos indeed, Bond's TOD is a mere speculation : he speculated that Mary ate at around 10:00 or 11:00, God knows why.
For the rest, he admitted rigidity could have set in within 6...or 12 hours.

Such a precision reminds me of a Swiss watch.

[DVV]

Actually, if one wants to rely on Bond's TOD, he has to put Bond on the suspects list and theorize that he and Mary had fish and chips that night.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
It is almost certain that the Time of death, was constructed around the alleged cries heard, for it would appear to be the most logical moment.
However the most vivid account came from Mrs Prater, who described the cry has ''awakening from a nightmare''
To me at least that description may well have been an accurate one, it fits well in with Kit Watkins interview with Lottie, who three years later was the occupant of room 13, which describes Kelly has having a bad nightmare, sometime after the 30TH of October, the subject of that nightmare was of being murdered.
Again at least to me, the very subject of that dream , would rather fit Praters statement, and could well result in the term''Oh Murder'' being heard.
And further more the phrase''The horrors of drink upon me'' may well have not meant the alcohol directly, but the inducement of bad dreams.
If one takes the possibility that Kelly's cry was not of a result of being actually attacked, and was indeed just wakening up suddenly from a nightmare, as dreams so violent do reoccur , then the actual T.O.D, could be hours out, and could well explain the morning sightings..
I appreciate the remains of food in the intestines, and the vomit witnessed will remain as a doubt for my theory, but I believe it offers an alternative .
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

The police were not talking to them, remember?

Not in any official capacity perhaps, but the practice of using police informants was really rather common. We know it happened in the Echo's case, because they reported police opinion which we know for certain to be correct. Hence, when the Star reported the police opinion that they subscribed to a later time of death to that provided by Bond, I think we can rationally conclude that they weren't lying about this detail for the hell of it.

Bond's report is not open to debate. No-one sat down and voted whether to accept or reject it, where did you come up with that? Scotland Yard is not a democracy Ben!

I'm not suggesting it was. I'm saying that they concluded, either collectively or as a result of an autocratic decree from on high, that the likely time of death was later than the 1.00-2.00am suggested by Bond. The only reason you want the police to have supported Bond's TOD is because you would prefer a different explanation for the prioritization of Cox's evidence to the obvious one, i.e. that she was considered reliable, attended the inquest, and wasn't discredited as a probable liar.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

I lose count of how many posts where you have claimed that Hutchinson was lying.

Then it shouldn’t be too difficult for you to reproduce one in which I have stated that Dew called Hutchinson a liar. That, after all, was your explicit accusation. So prove me wrong and locate just one of these many examples.

With that in mind, what I was alluding to is your attempt to now enroll Walter Dew as if he supported your contention, which he does not.

This would be my contention that Hutchinson’s story was discredited by the authorities? Here’s what Dew wrote: ‘I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong.’

Wrong.

Dew didn’t accept Hutchinson’s story. Not only did he repudiate it, he placed it in the same category as Carrie Maxwell’s demonstrably unreliable claims. The issue couldn’t be any clearer.

You have claimed Hutchinson was lying, Dew makes it clear in his opinion Hutchinson was not a liar, mistaken perhaps, just like Maxwell.

Hallelujah! Finally, at last, we have the admission you’ve been attempting to avoid all along. Thus, if Hutchinson was ‘mistaken’, so too was his claim relating to the meeting with Kelly and her subsequent encounter with Astrakhan. It doesn’t matter how you dress it up. None of this occurred as and when Hutchinson asserted in his police statement.

No-one found fault with Hutchinson's story, nor any part of his claims …

Of course not. That’s why Dew bracketed him with Carrie Maxwell and Anderson dismissed him in favour of an inferior witness when conducting the Seaside Home identification.

… therefore he was never dismissed as a liar, which runs contrary to your assertions.

He was dismissed. That’s what counts. It matters not one iota whether the authorities believed him to have been honestly mistaken or a profiteering liar. The simple fact of the matter is that his story came to be disregarded. You can quibble over semantic nuances all you like, but the reality is that you are plain wrong in continuing to assert that Hutchinson provided accurate information to the police.

[Garry Wroe]

Then appeared Hutchinson. The police make him witness No.1, which lasted for something like 24 hrs?

Which just happens to be the very scenario against which you have been arguing for the past year or so.

Warren requested Bond's analysis for the police to use. It was in Anderson's hands before the 13th, which is when the Met, shifted gears from Hutchinson back to Cox.

Same again.

[Malcolm X]

I'm anticipating Malcolm jumping down your throat for using unsolicited newspaper reports
I guess I'll have a long wait...



.Regards, Jon S.

LOL.... NO, because her description of Blotchy remains constant, it's women like Kennedy etc that crawl out of the woodwork that annoy me, or MJK being seen in the morning...... enough said.

the time GH waited is known, he can not afford to get this wrong, it has to be deadly accurate, but what we dont know is:- did he go in at 3am after someone else left, or did he walk off to return later at 3.55am.

my guess is he saw someone leave, waited to see if MJK was going to sleep, this was confirmed and then walked off to return at 3.55.

he knew what the hell was going on, because as he said, he kept sneaking in and out of the court, it's flipping dead easy to do what he did..... because it's not exactly hard to tell what's going on in there, the windows broken, so he'll be able to hear them whispering, him coughing etc... let alone them talking normally, in fact, the whole court will be able to hear them talking normally, sound travels so easily at night !

none of this is mentioned by the Witnesses, well no, because they're so useless, plus drunk.

i live in an end terrace, and if the girl 4 houses away has her window open in the summer you can hear everything at 4am, she's like MJK too, arent they all nowadays !

[caz]

Hi Ben,

You talk in general terms about documented 'intruder' killers, whereas I was asking for specifics that would have applied in Hutch's case, if you have him as an intruder who kills Mary Kelly.

A vital question here is whether Kelly and Hutch were complete strangers or known to each other. Was Hutch familiar with Miller's Court and its comings and goings or entirely unfamiliar?

I just cannot see him needing to wait outside in the court for 45 minutes if he knew Mary was alone in her room. What would he have been waiting for exactly? And what would have made him decide the time was finally right to let himself into the room? He must have been watching and waiting for someone to come out, because it all fits and the alternative makes no sense.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

I just cannot see him needing to wait outside in the court for 45 minutes if he knew Mary was alone in her room. What would he have been waiting for exactly? And what would have made him decide the time was finally right to let himself into the room? He must have been watching and waiting for someone to come out, because it all fits and the alternative makes no sense.

Caz,

Just because, okay? And I'm sure he knew that no matter how wet he might get, he could build a roaring fire to dry out. You see Hutch was so sure of himself, he knew he had hours of playtime. Why? he already had a great story. It involved Romford... and ... other things.

Mike