Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[DVV]

And this...

Given that Cox could only provide a suspect 1 hour and 15 minutes before Bond's probable "time of death" estimate, Anderson will know that Lawende is still a better witness from a legal perspective.

Bond's medical estimate does not make Cox a principal witness for sighting the Ripper, what it does do is eliminate Hutchinson from ever being considered as "the best witness", in spite of his claim.

Regards, Jon s.

So, in short, I was right pointing out that Bond's TOD was essential in your reasoning.
And you're just a liar, and too proud to admit you're wrong.

[DVV]

And this...

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?

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

Oh, what's this ?

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?

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Sorry, Jon, but I read your post cautiously and Bond's TOD was essential in your reasoning.

Wrong, I specifically quoted Bond at least twice. I've been around this too long to fall into that kind of trap.

[DVV]

Are you intentionally avoiding the real point?
Warren & Anderson trusted Bond, irrefutably it seems.
It didn't need to be accurate by our standards, his opinion needs to be trusted by them.

They made the decisions, not I.

Regards, Jon S.

Sorry, Jon, but I read your post cautiously and Bond's TOD was essential in your reasoning.
Unfortunately, it's useless.
You may like to have the last word for the sake of it, as for me, it's no problem when I'm corrected.

[Wickerman]

According to Bond's own words, and here is your problem.
Please answer : why do you think Bond's ToD is accurate ?

Are you intentionally avoiding the real point?
Warren & Anderson trusted Bond, irrefutably it seems.
It didn't need to be accurate by our standards, his opinion needs to be trusted by them.

They made the decisions, not I.

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

Your titinic effort to prove Ben and Garry wrong just proved your reasoning ridiculous, Jon.

Come on, what was Bond relying on ?

Rigor mortis ? No.

Her last meal ? YES.

But when was it ?

[DVV]

According to whose standards?

According to Bond's own words, and here is your problem.
Please answer : why do you think Bond's ToD is accurate ?

[Wickerman]

Jon, you really think you're on something here with Dr Bond ?
If so, I'm sorry for you.

Coming from someone who cannot distinguish a form from stationary, thats pretty impressive

[Wickerman]

Would you tell us by which marvel Bond's ToD would be accurate,

According to whose standards?

[DVV]

Jon, you really think you're on something here with Dr Bond ?
If so, I'm sorry for you.

Would you tell us by which marvel Bond's ToD would be accurate, and considered so by the investigators ?
They knew full well how uncertain were such estimations, at least since the Chapman case, although Phillips was on the spot only one hour after the murder.

[Wickerman]

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?

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.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
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.

Ben, The Star do not report police opinion, and what they do report is wrong. Plain and simple.

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.

Ben, Bond's report WAS the autocratic decree, it came from Commissioner Warren through Anderson.
Confirmation of receipt of the report was sent to the Secretary of State and offering of thanks to Dr. Bond;
"..to thank him for the valuable assistance he has thus rendered in the investigation of the murders."

The report was put into effect, as implied in the above words to the Secretary of State on the 13th.

Anderson terminated the request to Bond with the words;
" He (Warren) feels that your eminence as an expert in such cases - and it is entirely in that capacity that the present case is referred to you, will make your opinion specially valuable".

The intention to act on the report is clear, even before the report was created.

The opinions of Bond were deemed essential to give direction to the murder investigation. The decision had already been made, nothing was open for discussion about the reliability or accuracy.
No-one in the force contradicted Bond's estimated time of death, that is not how the system works.

It is precisely because this report appears in the hands of Scotland Yard at the time of the change of focus that we now have a genuine, bonafide, police directive to explain the shift.
Now we know it had nothing to do with Hutchinson's story. That being the case there are no grounds for claiming the shift was due to Hutch being dismissed as a liar.

Garry/Ben, your Titanic "Hutchinson dismissed as a liar" hypothesis has just hit the Iceberg of Bond's medical report. And we know which way this ship is headed now...

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

Jon, although I have the utmost respect for SPE, I must say I'm hardly impressed by your post.
Nothing is missing, you're plain wrong, which is no big problem, alas you're even not fair enough to admit that the Sunday sighting could easily be mentioned in the report that has survived.

[Wickerman]

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

Phew...!! thanks for that Garry - thought I was caught in an outer space where people use a different sourcebook and meet the Ripper everytime they go shopping.

Gentlemen, I think Stewart needs to bang your two heads together...


The 'report' you two are talking about is only a 'day-end' report that every officer filled out at the end of every day. It is written on stationary, an interrogation or interview is written on a form for that purpose.
Take a look at Hutchinson's voluntary statement, it is a form not stationary. Forms are for internal use only, not for sending to someone.

As I already explained, Abberline's first assignment that day (12th) was the Inquest, that is why this is the first subject.
Then appeared Hutchinson, not that Abberline was present, he wasn't, but he is putting events in sequence because what followed was the interrogation.

Abberline is forwarding Hutchinson's initial statement along with his "days-end" report to his superiors because he has no use for it himself, he has created his own interrogation file which stays with him.

The Interrogation file is missing!

I'm surprised you had not checked with Stewart before you go patting each other on the back, ...silly me, what would Stewart know.

Regards, Jon S.