Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

Thanks, Garry.

I think we can safely dispense with the notion that Cox's evidence was prioritized purely because of Bond's suggested time of death. Indeed, the following extract from the Star, 13th November, flatly refutes it:

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


Fact - Macdonald never provided an official time of death, why?

Fact - Dr. Phillips was never given the opportunity to offer an opinion.

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

Fact - Nothing was "proven" concerning the time of death, regardless what your preferred source (The Star) speculates.

What did your Star write the night before?

"Dr. Bagster Phillips, divisional surgeon, says that when he was called (at a quarter to eleven) Kelly had been dead some five or six hours. "
The Star, 12 Nov.

Dr. Phillips appears to lean towards Kelly dying between 5:45 - 6:45 am, roughly.
How does that fit your theory?

You were pulling my leg, right?

It was in consequence of Macdonald failing to provide an official time of death by the conclusion of his Inquest that Anderson would be compelled to share Dr. Bond's report with Swanson, which in effect, re-shuffled the deck.

Regards, Jon S.

[Observer]

Anderson's recollections were defective certainly, therefore unreliable with respect to this debate

Hi Wickerman

I'd agree. Likewise, Aberlline's assertion that JTR was only ever viewed from the rear is defective, and therefore unreliable with respect to this debate also.

[Wickerman]

I never said that Dew called Hutchinson a liar, Jon. I said that he ‘rejected Hutchinson’s account’. There is a difference.

Garry.
I lose count of how many posts where you have claimed that Hutchinson was lying. 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.
You have claimed Hutchinson was lying, Dew makes it clear in his opinion Hutchinson was not a liar, mistaken perhaps, just like Maxwell.

...we seem to be making progress of sorts. You now appear to be acknowledging that Hutchinson’s story was dismissed by the authorities.

I hope we are not descending into semantics.
Dismissed is not discredited.

So long as Anderson & Warren both accept Bond's estimated time of death, there is no reflection on George Hutchinson, because their acceptance comes down to a matter of opinion, not of fact.

No-one found fault with Hutchinson's story, nor any part of his claims, therefore he was never dismissed as a liar, which runs contrary to your assertions.

It might be well to highlite a reminder here of something I explained to Ben some months ago.
"Diminution" is not "Discredit".

When the Echo wrote:
"The importance which they then attached to it has since suffered diminution."

They were alluding to the fact Hutchinson's story has been reduced in importance, diminution means reduced, it does not mean dismissed or discredited.

And in the very same paper we read:
"The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement."

Which, as it now turns out appears to be a reasonably accurate use of terminology. Swanson/Abberline were "induced" by Warren/Anderson to take direction from Bond's medical report in preference to all else.

The police merely chose to work with the word of a trusted professional due to Macdonald not being able to provide a time of death at the conclusion of the Inquest, which unfortunately displaces Hutchinson to second place, with Cox now being the most prominent.
Both Anderson & Warren will know that there lies a degree of uncertainty as to the precise time of death, as both Bond and Phillips have explained.

According to Dew, Hutchinson may have mixed up the time or date of his alleged sighting of Kelly. At any event, this means that Hutchinson did not meet Kelly on Commercial Street at the time specified in his witness statement, and that Kelly did not encounter Astrakhan shortly thereafter.

Depending on whether Dr Bond was correct, if not, then Hutchinson is back in the frame. Which demonstrates that Hutchinson was not discredited for lying. The change in focus was a prudent move on behalf of the authorites, with no intended reflection on any witnesses.

Just for the sake of our disagreement, it is important to distinguish between Hutchinson being discredited for lying, which is the persistent claim here, or that Hutchinson's claim was relegated in importance due to outside influences, hence he was not accused by anyone of lying.

The latter appears to reflect the true situation.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi all,

I notice the issue of the "intruder" keeps cropping up, and I touched upon it earlier in this thread. I consider it more probable than not that Kelly fell victim to an intruder rather than someone she brought home as a client. A point worth noting about those known serial killers who became intruders (or "home invaders") during the course of their rampages, is that they embarked on a period of pre-crime surveillance prior to attacking. With the possible exception of the haphazard Richard Trenton Chase, they didn't simply turn up at the venue and launch straight into it, since for obvious reasons this would have been imprudent. Rather, they installed themselves at a convenient vantage point and monitored the various comings and goings of neighbours and other visitors, only striking at what they considered to be the opportune moment.

[Ben]

Bond's time of death estimation was calculated, at least in part, on the digestive rate of Kelly's stomach content. But since no-one had the vaguest idea as to the time at which Kelly had taken her final meal, Bond's estimation must have been largely speculatory. Personally, I think that the cry of 'Murder!' heard by two witnesses was the clincher as far as investigators were concerned, even though these same investigators normally placed a great deal of faith in the medical evidence.

Agreed on both counts, Garry.

Hi Jon,

Dorset Street wasn't badly lighted in comparison to other streets, and there was a lamp opposite Kelly's room where the Cox sighting occurred. On the illumination front at least, Cox's sighting was superior to Lawende's. Where are you getting a "short carroty moustache" from, incidentally? In all versions of Cox's testimony I've read, the moustache is described either as "full" or "thick", which amounts to the same thing.

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.

All the best,
Ben