Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[Ben]

Ben, The Star do not report police opinion

They did on this occasion, Jon.

They definitely, definitely reported the police opinion that the murder occurred later than the TOD offered by Bond, and accurately at that. They didn't just make it up for some bizarre, illogical reason. It is complete nonsense to suggest that the police as a collective were forced to accept Bond's opinion. That is absolutely not the case. The police, then and now, use all evidence at their disposal, and if compelling eyewitness evidence points to a conclusion other than that suggested by medical opinion, it would be reckless and irresponsible to champion the latter purely as a courteous "salute". There is absolutely no evidence that the police supported the 1.00am-2.00am time of death, and compelling indications to the contrary.

Bond's report WAS the autocratic decree

No, it wasn't. How can you possibly think that? And why on earth are you using police quotes praising Bond as evidence for this? Yes, they "valued" his "assistance" and rightly so, but they doesn't mean that his opinion equated to gospel, and was beyond criticism.

Bond's evidence had absolutely NOTHING to do with the prioritization of Cox's evidence. They did NOT endorse his suggested early time of death, as can be seen from the Star report I provided. The only reason you're claiming otherwise is because you wish to avoid the more rational explanations for the apparent championing of her evidence.

As David pointed out, it's rather essential that you don't keep clinging to this Bond/TOD issue.

Regards,
Ben

[lynn cates]

I was looking back to see, if you were looking back at me.

Hello Caroline.

"The awful thing is, it could well have been the ripper waiting 45 minutes for Hutch to push off before he could finally turn his attention to Mary Kelly's throat shortly after 3am."

Now here's a novel thought. Whilst Hutch is looking up the court waiting for knowledge of A-Man, A-Man is peering back at Hutch wondering when he will ever leave.

Interesting.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Well Caz, for what its worth, I agree with what Stewart E. said a long time ago. Hutchinson was just waiting for her last client to leave to approach her for somewhere to doss tonight. Nothing more suspicious than that.

If you recall, Hutchinson said he waited 3/4 hr "to see if they came down".
I do wonder if Abberline asked "why?" I think anybody would, he must have.

Regards, Jon S.

There's no place for common sense like that here, Jon.

The awful thing is, it could well have been the ripper waiting 45 minutes for Hutch to push off before he could finally turn his attention to Mary Kelly's throat shortly after 3am.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Why does a burglar wait until a family is sleeping before entering a property?

Again, Garry, I was asking for specifics in Hutch's case, not generalities.

Assuming for the sake of argument that Hutchinson did enter Kelly’s room, he would have waited until such time as he felt it safe to do so. Just like our burglar, he would have minimized the risk of disturbing anyone or being disturbed himself.

Well since your theory is that he did enter the room, to slaughter the woman alone inside, you must have gone through the whole Hutch scenario in your head, and not simply relied on our common burglar and what he might or might not do when trying to commit a far less serious type of crime in premises that may be entirely unfamiliar to him, along with the occupants.

This is basic common sense. The killer could have committed his offences during daylight hours had he so chosen, at a time when potential victims were far more plentiful. Instead he elected to kill during the small hours. Although this strategy meant that he had far fewer potential victims at his disposal, it also dramatically increased his chances of escaping detection. It is the principle of risk and reward.

Again, none of this addresses the specifics that would be unique to the Miller's Court job if Hutch was waiting for the opportunity to kill Mary Kelly.

Although I tend to agree with your basic premise, it is by no means the only explanation that makes sense. He may simply have been waiting until the streets were largely deserted before making his move. He may have observed Mrs Cox flitting in and out of the court. He may have been unnerved by the appearance of Sarah Lewis. He may also have feared an unexpected appearance by Barnett or Julia. We simply don’t know. But the fact that he subsequently claimed to have spent a few minutes directly outside Kelly’s room shortly before three o’clock is strongly suggestive that this was the time at which he entered the room, if indeed he did enter it. Either way, that he neglected to disclose such detail to Abberline is extraordinary, and not a little suspicious.

That's right - we simply don't know. It's all complete guesswork. But it would equally have all been complete guesswork for Hutch, since there was nobody waving a placard to tell him the coast was now clear and he could enter that room and guarantee to find Mary alone and too far gone to cause a commotion.

We don't know that Hutch 'neglected to disclose such detail to Abberline' since we have no details of the interrogation. But if he did, do you suppose Abberline would not have picked up on any additional or contradictory claims made subsequently and assessed them accordingly?

Love,

Caz
X

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
It is not inconceivable that Elizabeth Prater was the intended victim, did she not say to McCarthy that she had been waiting for her''young man'' who failed to show, and to tell him she had gone up to bed.?
I gather that to enter the upper level one used the door in the passage on the right , so is it not possible that the killer entered room 13 in error.
I do not believe this actually happened, but it is a thought.
Regards Richard.

[harry]

Jon
I apologise if it appears I misread you,but the similarity I was alluding to w as that each was following a seemingly intoxicated individual,and how close each was to observe events at a crucial time.In general I discount specific details as given by most witnesses,and I am persuaded that BS had no part in murder.
As to knowledge of Kelly's living arrangements,I make this observation.To a person not faimilier with the court,room 13 would appear the rear room of the building fronting Dorset street.(which it was)As a rule lower rooms were not used as sleeping accomodation. Alterations which had made room 13 a bed sitter would not have been general knowledge.As there was another room above 13,to the unknowing this probably would be taken as the bedroom.So unless the intruder that night was a burglar expecting an unoccupied room,and panicking when he found it not so,someone was aware of what it was being used for,and who was using it.
Back to Cox's information.It might seem extremely unlikely that a person bent on murder would start out that evening carrying a beer pail.of what use would it be.especially so if he was a stranger from outside the area.

[DVV]

The police are concerned about Bond's conclusions, not every specific of how he arrived at them. Police officials are not qualified to judge, but ask for clarification?, yes certainly. It is wrong for anyone to assume they didn't.
Regards, Jon S.

Even now in 2012, ToD is something uneasy to determine. I'm sure you've heard of this.

In the Chapman case, Phillips arrived in Hanbury Street about one hour only after the murder. And not only he made a mistake, but admitted it. Indeed he explained at the inquest how difficult a task it was to determine ToD, as experienced and knowledgeable as he could be.

And this, the police knew full well, including Anderson. Nobody could seriously take Bond's "2 o'clock" for the Gospel truth, first of all Bond himself, for he was aware, as an expert, that determing ToD, especially under certain circumstances like that of Miller's Court (body found hours after the murder, in a room that could have been cold - broken window - but hot as well - fire in the grate), was beyond his expertise.

I'm not blaming Bond for his hazardous and unecessary "2 o'clock", and I think the police did well involving him in the case. But on the other hand, regarding time of death and also in his "profile", it's clear, in my opinion, that Bond - full of good will as he would be - tried to read too much into "non-ascertained facts". And the time of Mary's last meal is one of these.

[DVV]

Right, so what your suggesting is that Bond was not able to use digestion as a determining factor. Don't you think Bond would know this?
Regards, Jon S.

Oh dear, you're just making a fool of yourself... You really seem unable to understand what you read.

Of course Bond could use digestion as a determining factor, albeit not a precise one, if only he had known the time of Mary's last meal.

He certainly could estimate that Kelly ate her last supper 3 or 4 hours before the murder, no problem with this.

But when he said "2 o'clock", that is just a hazardous guess and nothing scientific. He couldn't figure people eating their dinner after 10 or 11. As incredible as it seems, that's all it means, and this is proven by Bond's own words and by the indisputable fact that the time of Mary's last meal was, and is still unknown.

If new evidence, one day, tells us at what time that meal was taken, then Bond's deduction (= murdered 3 or 4 hours after her dinner) would, no doubt, help us determine the ToD - except for one hour.

It's so simple I'm sure it will sink in one day.

[Wickerman]

In other (broken-English) terms : Anderson knew that Bond had no idea when Mary took her last meal.

Right, so what your suggesting is that Bond was not able to use digestion as a determining factor. Don't you think Bond would know this?

The report is not complete and could be worded better but you are looking at this from the point as though you were Anderson, and you would ask him about the digestion issue.
Why would you assume Anderson didn't, you're smarter than him?

Bond's conclusions are not complete because in the 19th century there were three determining factors; Rigor Mortis, Livor Mortis, Algor Mortis.

Algor Mortis (body cooling) does not apply as Phillips also commented because of the condition of the body.
Livor Mortis, (Lividity) does apply, and is a significant indicator, but is not mentioned in the report, but was certainly applied, he was a professional and knew the proceedure.

Your question therefore implies ineptitude and/or inexperience in a surgeon who was accustomed to conducting autopsies, based on the inadequate wording and incomplete content.

Most of the highly critical arguments here come from people who know nothing about the subject, yet profess to label the professionals who did as, ....incompetent?

The police are concerned about Bond's conclusions, not every specific of how he arrived at them. Police officials are not qualified to judge, but ask for clarification?, yes certainly. It is wrong for anyone to assume they didn't.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Beg your pardon ? I read your posts, comment on them, and you deny having written such posts...branding me a liar implicitly.

But you are the liar, as you compelled me to prove it.

I denied having written what?

I posted what you copied, obviously.

Take this a little slower because you are not making sense.

Explain:
Why what I think about Bond's estimate has anything to do with Warren's/Anderson's decision.

[DVV]

In other (broken-English) terms : Anderson knew that Bond had no idea when Mary took her last meal.

Yes, for once, Anderson knew.

[DVV]

Unless you think otherwise.

Regards, Jon S.

Of course I think otherwise. Anderson could read the reason why Bond made this estimate.
As much as all of us.

In other (broken-English) terms : Anderson knew that Bond had no idea when Mary took her last meal.

[DVV]

Beg your pardon ? I read your posts, comment on them, and you deny having written such posts...branding me a liar implicitly.

But you are the liar, as you compelled me to prove it.

[Wickerman]

And you're just a liar, and too proud to admit you're wrong.

No use spitting your dummy out at me sunshine....

[Wickerman]

Agreed, now kindly show me what is written "essentially in my reasoning"?

Then, please explain why what I think about Bond's estimate has anything to do with Anderson's decision.

Lastly, unless you missed it, I also pointed out to Malcolm that Bond's estimate need not have been correct. The fact it was trusted and accepted by those who matter, is all that is relevant for the change to occur.

Unless you think otherwise.

Regards, Jon S.