Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[Garry Wroe]

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

Specifics that none of us could possibly know, Caz, hence the need to refer to the general behavioural patterns of known offenders.

Well since your theory is that he did enter the room, to slaughter the woman alone inside …

I have never at any time stated it as my belief that Hutchinson killed anyone.

… 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.

There is no significant distinction, Caz, between the psychology of a burglar and a man intent on entering a room for the purpose of murder. The cognitive processes are the same in either case, which is why I referred to the principle of risk and reward in my previous post. It was established decades ago, for example, that shopping behaviour and the trawling activities employed by serial killers draw upon identical cognitive mapping processes. Thus I maintain that the burglary analogy holds true.

We don't know that Hutch 'neglected to disclose such detail to Abberline' since we have no details of the interrogation …

Hutchinson never mentioned spending several minutes directly outside Kelly’s room whilst detailing his witness statement, and Abberline made no reference to it in his accompanying memo. Since the incident was too important not to have been remarked upon by Abberline, it may be inferred that it was never discussed during the interrogation or the interview proper.

… 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?

One would assume so. But then if, as certainly appears to have been the case, Hutchinson had been dismissed as a time-waster by the time his newspaper claims entered the public domain, it is entirely possible that the several minutes he allegedly spent outside Kelly’s room were deemed to have been Packeresque flights of fancy and were thus disregarded. On the other hand, none of the Ripper-related books I read in the mid-Eighties made any reference to this incident. I only learned of it whilst conducting my own research at the Colindale newspaper archive. So if it was missed by the authors who preceded me, it may be the case that it slipped beneath Abberline’s radar too. He was rather busy at the time, after all.

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.

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.

Yes, I remember an earlier quote from you on this subject. Apparently your Star "flatly refutes" Bonds ToD, in your opinion..

Dr. Phillips's evidence, together with that of Mary Ann Cox, Elizabeth Prater, and others, proves that the murder was committed SHORTLY AFTER THREE O'CLOCK- a fact which brings into startling relief the murderer's coolness, caution, and tenacity of purpose."

Ok, just quote from Dr. Phillips testimony at the Inquest precisely what he say's about "Time of Death" - Nothing!

Your Star is Wrong!

Now, Mary Ann Cox, what does she say?, that at 3:00 am all was quiet in Kelly's room?
Is that because she was already dead?
She heard no screams so obviously either Cox is mistaken as to the time, or the Star has also got this wrong. Cox's contributes Nothing!, to contest Dr. Bond.

By the way, The Star also wrote:
"Mary Ann Cox, who lives in the house where the dreadful deed was done,.."

She does?
Is this another example of your reliable Star?

Then Prater, who plainly said she heard a scream "probably after 4:00 am", is certainly "after" 3:00 am, but hardly "shortly after", so where are they getting all this useless information from, you say its the police?

You have criticized both the Morning Advertiser and the Daily News for being unreliable yet you continue to quote this drivel from the Star.

I cannot take your persistent use of this untrustworthy, unreliable newspaper as a serious source of information.

If this is all you can drag up against Dr. Bond's estimated ToD, then you have nothing, just the usual smoke & mirrors.

The truth, the police had no sense of direction following the conclusion of the Inquest. No determinable Time of Death, Dr. Bond's report provided that direction.

Regards, Jon S.

[harry]

Jon,
No doubt there were a large number of bed sitters,as there are today,but unless there was personnel knowledge as to occupancy,one would not know what situation would be encountered on entering.As to 13 Millers Court,because of it's situation,and because it had been untill very recent lived in by a couple,one would also have to have been aware of the split,which had left only the female in residence. Would this knowledge be widespread? The court residents would know,but would a casual passer by on Dorset Street know.The most likely person to know that she would be in her room,alone,under the influence of drink,in the early hours of that morning,was her midnight companion.Or the man reported by Hutchinson.It is because of my doubts that this person existed,that I tend to to the opinion that Hutchinson lied,was himself the midnight visitor,and was her killer.

[Wickerman]

Hi Harry.

Jon,
The most likely person to know that she would be in her room,alone,under the influence of drink,in the early hours of that morning,was her midnight companion.

Quite true, its the safest bet, better than an intruder.

Or the man reported by Hutchinson.

I don't think there would be as much interest in labelling Hutchinson as the killer if the man he had described had been a rough looking local.
Which tells me it isn't that there is anything suspicious about Hutchinson himself, it is more a reaction against the detailed description he gave.
However,...

It is because of my doubts that this person existed,that I tend to to the opinion that Hutchinson lied,was himself the midnight visitor,and was her killer.

If Hutchinson had not come forward we would not know anything about about Astrachan. All we would have is Sarah Lewis seeing a man outside in the street looking up the court. The fact she also claimed to then see this man stand outside Kelly's door would make for a very suspicious sighting.
Depending on Kelly's time of death, whoever this character was would certainly be high on the suspect list.

The principal flaw in this to my mind is Hutchinson coming forward. Anyone seriously intending to place an invented suspect in the hands of the police to distract from himself is not going to make him look so different from any of the previous killer descriptions given by Lawende, Schwartz, etc.

I mean, if you are late for work one morning, do you say you slept in, or that you spent the night with Miss World?
Anyone who expects to be taken seriously, especially if his freedom depends on it, is going to make every effort to be realistic.
Realistically, if Hutchinson had been the killer, he would have gone to ground, not to Commercial St.

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

No, Bond does not need the 'time' of her last meal. I know what you mean, being all CSI-type precise, but that is not looking at this from their point of view.

At the time of the autopsy the police had Blotchy as a suspect, via Cox.
When a medical man finds food in the stomach he asks the police to find out when she might have ate.

- Cox told the police she followed Blotchy & Kelly down Dorset St. from the direction of Commercial St., the Britannia is behind them.
- Cox said Kelly had been drinking.
- Cox tells us Blotchy carries a pot of ale.

The police therefore can assist Bond in so far as they suspect Kelly & her client have just "recently", meaning within minutes, stepped out of a local pub or tavern. Right or wrong this is the working assumption on Saturday.
Either establishment provides both food and drink.

Bond can work under the assumption from the police that Kelly ate anywhere around 11:00-11:30, as a rule of thumb. This, coupled with other unverified stories of Kelly being in the Britannia from 10:00-10:30 pm is consistent.
This is all Bond needs in order to establish a rough time of death, and a rough time of death is what he provided.

Such a direction from police is all that is required for Bond to use digestion as an estimate.
Thus the sequence of logic is established.
Bond makes his estimate based on the police suspicion of Kelly's liason with Blotchy, without a specific time but a rudimentary time window, 10:00-11:30 pm.

Regards, Jon S.

Jon, you may think you're on something here, but really you are not.
Do you realize you're telling us that Bond established the TOD on the basis of Mary having taken her meal in the Britannia between 10 and 10:30 ?
Who told you the police believed she was there and ate at such a time ?
And that would be the reason why they dismissed both Hutch and Prater ?
Oh my God. No wonder they did not catch the man.
Try to write a dissertation about this theory and you'll see how flawed it is.
The good part of it is that you won't waste time with footnotes, for there is nothing to back it up.

[harry]

Jon,
W hy could not the midnight companion be a later intruder?.Seems to me if he could spend time with Kelly untill after midnight,his personnel life,whatever it was.placed no great restrictions on his behaviour or whereabouts.One could state the same of Hutchinson.No restrictions there.I doubt anyone worried on his behalf,if he was out all night.Of course a different description would require a different appraisal,but we are faced with what was reported.As we are faced with Kelly being found in room 13.Found anywhere else and we might think differently.Not that the description is the total of disbelief.It is only one item.Others have been argued repeatedly.
Regards.

[Malcolm X]

.
The principal flaw in this to my mind is Hutchinson coming forward. Anyone seriously intending to place an invented suspect in the hands of the police to distract from himself is not going to make him look so different from any of the previous killer descriptions given by Lawende, Schwartz, etc.

I mean, if you are late for work one morning, do you say you slept in, or that you spent the night with Miss World?
Anyone who expects to be taken seriously, especially if his freedom depends on it, is going to make every effort to be realistic.
Realistically, if Hutchinson had been the killer, he would have gone to ground, not to Commercial St.

Regards, Jon S.

he will make the suspect look different, if he's trying to blame a ``Dell boy Jew``on purpose, which is the next stage on from the Ghoulston st graffiti.

JTR has no need to go to the police, or even to dive for cover, so if GH isn't JTR, then he was 2 days too late, so therefore he's either after a reward or a time wasting hoaxer!

the weakest scenario is that he saw LA DE DA

[Ben]

Agreed all round, Harry and Dave!

Hi Jon,

Your Star is Wrong!

IT IS NOT WRONG.

The Star accurately reported the detail that the police supported a later time of death than that proffered by Dr. Bond. For what possible reason would they invent something so inconsequential to the reputation of the police? The police evidently believed the cry of "murder" to have been uttered by the victim shortly before her death.

The fact that the Star specified "shortly after 3.00 o'clock" is irrelevant. It demonstrates at the very least that they did NOT support the 1.00am-2.00am suggested by Bond. Anyway, "shortly after 3.00 o'clock" isn't remotely inconsistent with Cox's evidence. She passed the house at 3.00am before returning home, at which point she was in no position to determine whether or not a murder was being committed "shortly" thereafter. The fact that she didn't hear a cry is only evidence that it wasn't loud enough to travel further than her nearest neighbours above (Prater) and Lewis (opposite). Cox lived at the opposite end of the court.

"Mary Ann Cox, who lives in the house where the dreadful deed was done,.."

Indeed she did. If a house is a building comprised of rooms and all belonging to one unit, then Cox and Kelly lived in the same house, "yes". They were neither saying nor implying that the two women lived in the same room.

There is not a scrap of evidence that the police supported Bond's time of death, and strong indications against it. The fact that a doctor supplied a report doesn't mean that the police are duty-bound to accept it, especially when it argues against mutually supportive eyewitness evidence. The huge irony here is that you too reject Bond's time of death, and yet here you are wrongly insisting that the police subscribed to it.

Regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

No, Bond does not need the 'time' of her last meal. I know what you mean, being all CSI-type precise, but that is not looking at this from their point of view.

It doesn’t matter whose point of view you choose to take, Jon. Bond attempted to determine Kelly’s time of death by establishing how long her final meal had lain in her stomach – an interval which he estimated to have been three or four hours. Thus the only possible way in which he could have ascertained the time of death via the digestive rate would have been to add three or four hours to the time at which this meal was consumed. In the absence of such information any time of death estimation has to be considered unreliable.

And what do we find?

The time at which Kelly consumed her final meal remained an unknown quantity.

In other words, the time of death postulated by Bond was pure supposition, based as it was upon an assumption that Kelly took her last meal at approximately 10:00pm.

Bond can work under the assumption from the police that Kelly ate anywhere around 11:00-11:30, as a rule of thumb. This, coupled with other unverified stories of Kelly being in the Britannia from 10:00-10:30 pm is consistent. This is all Bond needs in order to establish a rough time of death, and a rough time of death is what he provided.

Except that investigators turned up no-one, absolutely no-one, who could provide concrete information as to Kelly’s whereabouts in the hours immediately preceding her 11:45pm encounter with Mrs Cox. And nor did Bond formulate his time of death estimation based upon a final meal taken at between 11:00 and 11:30pm. It was 10:00pm.

Thus, Jon, you are clearly making it up as you go along, advancing any number of scenarios as fact when they are no more than wishful thinking, and all in an attempt to sustain your contention of a truthful but misunderstood Hutchinson. One day the penny might drop and you’ll recognize that investigators refocused their efforts on Blotchy not because of Bond’s medical misdirection, but because they discovered Hutchinson to be a less than credible witness.

But I rather suspect that Hell will freeze over first.

[Wickerman]

........Do you realize you're telling us that Bond established the TOD on the basis of Mary having taken her meal in the Britannia between 10 and 10:30 ?

10:00 pm to 11:30, or thereabouts.
The time is implied by his conclusion, you know that.

What you appear to be suggesting is that Bond did not have a 'meal-time' to use as a reference point. In which case, simple math demands he cannot provide a conclusion, yet he does. Therefore common sense demands he was given one.

Why is that very basic deduction lost on you?

These people were not fools, ...or is that what you are implying?

You seriously wish to argue that four highly educated men (all aware of the report), The Under Secretary of State, Commissioner Warren, Robert Anderson and ultimately Dr. Bond himself are not in command of the very basic math required to make this simple deduction?

If you permit yourself to admit they were suitably educated then you are bound to accept the very simple and obvious conclusion that Bond 'was' indeed given a reference point with which to start.

The fact no police files have survived which tell us exactly what the police opinion was on this, on the 10th, does not in any way diminish the conclusion provided by Dr. Bond.

I do not appreciate forum members suggesting the police & medical officials were stupid. If that is the premiss of the argument then the argument is invalid.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

....Then it shouldn’t be too difficult for you to reproduce one in which I have stated that Dew called Hutchinson a liar.

I said "You", not "Dew".

"You" call Hutchinson a liar, therefore "Dew" does not support your position.

And nor did Bond formulate his time of death estimation based upon a final meal taken at between 11:00 and 11:30pm. It was 10:00pm.

I wrote, "10:00 pm to 11:30 pm", you really have trouble reading, Garry?

Macdonald terminated the Inquest before Phillips was able to produce his evidence.
At the point where Phillips would have mentioned the food discovered in the intestines, Macdonald would ask if the police had discovered when Kelly had last ate.
At this point Abberline would have provide his answer.

Since none of this happened because of Macdonald, then we do not know what the police had turned up.

So when you observe..

The time at which Kelly consumed her final meal remained an unknown quantity.

That is from our perspective, not theirs.

Regards, Jon S.

[Garry Wroe]

Macdonald terminated the Inquest before Phillips was able to produce his evidence … At the point where Phillips would have mentioned the food discovered in the intestines, Macdonald would ask if the police had discovered when Kelly had last ate … At this point Abberline would have provide his answer … Since none of this happened because of Macdonald, then we do not know what the police had turned up.

Yes we do. Nothing. The police could provide MacDonald with not a single witness who had positively sighted Kelly during the four-hour period that immediately preceded the Cox encounter. Had investigators located such a person he or she would have been brought before the inquest as a material witness. So despite your indignant rebuke of Dave and other like-minded posters, it is abundantly obvious that Dr Bond had no tangible evidence on which to base his conclusion that Kelly took her final meal at ten o’clock. None whatsoever. Thus his projected time of death was almost certainly in error by at least an hour, possibly even two or three hours.

[Wickerman]

Yes we do. Nothing. The police could provide MacDonald with not a single witness who had positively sighted Kelly during the four-hour period that immediately preceded the Cox encounter.

Which means what?
- She was out but not noticed, not remembered?

- She was already "out" when Cox saw her coming in.
- Kelly had been drinking.
- Blotchy had a mug of ale.

I guess she must have been out, and for long enough to get "drunk".

"Among the witnesses called was John M'Carthy, landlord and neighbour of the deceased. He said he last saw her late on the night before the murder; she was then accompanied by a man, of whom the witness gave a minute description, saying he should know him if he saw him again."
Daily Telegraph, 13 Nov.

A material witness who was actually at the Inquest.

Most certainly the police knew she had been out, and drinking.

What we know is only a fraction of what the police knew.

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

Hi Jon

I do not appreciate forum members suggesting the police & medical officials were stupid.
Regards, Jon S.

But that's what you're doing with your untenable theory that the police would have blindly followed Bond's untenable and baseless TOD.

[Ben]

Yes, just to reiterate what others have sensibly observed, we can dispense utterly with the suggestion that Bond's time of death had anything remotely to do with the bogus press claims that Kelly was seen drinking with a man on the night of her death. These claims are utterly baseless. Had there been any reliable, worth-taking-seriously evidence of such an occurrence, it would have appeared at the inquest. McCarthy, for instance, did not see Kelly on the night of her death. The reports suggesting he did are hopelessly and transparently false. Had he done so, the detail would have appeared at the inquest.

A more reliable Daily Telegraph report from 14th read as follows:

"With regard to the statement of Mrs. Cox that she saw a man who carried a pot of beer enter, with the deceased, her room in Miller's-court on the morning of the murder, no can has been found, and inquiry has failed to discover any publican who served Kelly or her companion with beer on the night of Thursday."

Is it unlikely that Kelly was drinking in some pub or other shortly before she was seen by Mary Cox? Of course not. But in the absence of any credible evidence that it occurred, Bond could not have used this to bolster his TOD.