Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[Wickerman]

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

Dave.
Bond was specifically asked for guidance. Scotland Yard had no direction, the detective force cannot be expected to function without an estimated Time of Death from an official source. Dr. Bond was that official source.

We have no grounds for arguing that Scotland Yard, having first asked him for help would then turn it down, in favour of what?
And who is about to turn it down?, Anderson is the head of CID, of course he is going to use it to direct the investigation.

Accuracy, from our perspective, has nothing to do with it. Dr. Phillips was non-committal, the other doctors; Gabe, Duke, Gordon-Browne, etc. had not provided any opinion on the matter.
Bond was both comepetant and a friend of Anderson, so to suggest Scotland Yard would then proceed with no direction when direction was within their hands is ludicrous.

Like I said, Scotland Yard was not a democracy, and especially as Warren had been running the force like a military unit, discipline was paramount, and any professional help would be graciously recieved.

Bond's conclusion was what they wanted, what they needed, and consequently, what they used, evidenced by the sudden shift in favour of a suspect who was seen prior to "1:00-2:00 am", not after.

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

Hi Jon

Dave.
Bond was specifically asked for guidance.
Regards, Jon S.

He wasn't specifically called to establish the TOD, which the police knew he could not.
Phillips himself could not do the job in the Chapman case, although he was on the spot only one hour after the murder.
Bond wasn't Merlin the Wizard, nor Anderson that silly.

Once again, the very idea that Hutch had been dismissed because Bond decided the murder would have been perpetrated at 2:00 is utterly preposterous.

As you can observe, even those who are usually so prompt to use all means against Hutch aren't exactly turning up their droves to defend your theory.

[Wickerman]

Hi Dave.

Hi Jon
He wasn't specifically called to establish the TOD, which the police knew he could not.

Now c'mon Dave, you know I didn't say he was. You are well aware that I said Bond was requested to give guidance, don't set up a straw-man argument only to shoot it down.

Phillips himself could not do the job in the Chapman case, although he was on the spot only one hour after the murder.

Phillips gave his opinion with the qualifier that the body may have cooled rapidly distorting his calculations. Incidently, the rate of cooling is a calculation, it is not guesswork.

The Chapman case benefitted more due to two witnesses, Richardson after 4:50 am & Davis before 6:00 am. So they knew the time window, Cadosch & Long narrowed it further.
Had there been no witnesses, when do you think the police might have approximated the Time of Death? And who's opinion would they have followed? - the only one they had, Dr. Phillips.

This was not the same situation in Millers Court, with no witnesses between midnight (Cox) and 8:00 am (Maxwell), and cries of “murder” heard all too often to be a firm indicator.


On the day of the Kelly murder Dr. Phillips cautiously implied a Time of Death around 5:00-6:00 am;

"when he was called to the deceased (at a quarter to 11) she had been dead some five or six hours.",
Times, 12 Nov.

though again he qualified his opinion by saying, the rate of cooling must have been distorted by the condition of the body.
This opinion remained unchanged from the 9th though to the day of the Inquest.

The only beneficial point which can be taken from Phillips's opinion is that it excluded the Maxwell sighting. They were still left with a last suspect sighting at midnight, a cry of “murder” at 4:00 am, and a possible Time of Death estimated no later than 5:00-6:00 am.
What appears to be consistent is that Phillips could have erred by 1 hour, allowing his estimated Time of Death to include 4:00 am.

From midnight until 4:00 am is far too long a period to be certain the Cox sighting was actually the killer, and in possession of a pot of ale hardly suggests “intent to murder”.
What the police needed from the Inquest was a more accurate Time of Death. They prettywell knew what the witnesses were going to say, they interviewed them. What the police would not know was the final medical evidence.

This is where Macdonald, in my opinion, let them down, therefore we read in the press the following day:

"Nothing was said yesterday as to the probable time of the murder, but we have reason to believe that the conclusion arrived at by several medical men who were on the spot shortly after the discovery of the body was that the deed had been done certainly not later than six or seven on Friday morning, and it might have been a good deal earlier."
Daily News, 13 Nov.

And, just for good measure I'll show the Star also agreed:

"The inquest on Mary Janet Kelly has closed, like its predecessors, without throwing any useful light on the crime.....
As to the time of the murder, it is now generally admitted that Kelly could not, as some have stated, have been alive on Friday morning."
The Star, 13 Nov.

So when, in the same paper, we are told that together the opinions of Phillips and the witnesses:
" proves that the murder was committed shortly after three o'clock "

is misleading to say the least. And plainly wrong to be precise.
The police have been left with no viable Time of Death.


Suggesting that Bond's estimate would not have been followed because it cannot have been precise is another straw-man argument.

All Time of Death calculations are estimated, the police know this. And in this case the opinion written by Bond directly implies the reference time was given to him by the police. It would not have come from anywhere else.
The estimate is as sound as the police information, so it is obscure why you would then suggest they might dismiss his opinion, when it was based on their input in the first place.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

The police are absolutely not duty-bound to accept medical opinion, especially when it conflicts with eyewitness (or in this case "ear witness") testimony. However "not uncommon" cries may have been in the district, it must be considered absurdly implausible that a cry of murder, which seemed to come from Kelly's room, had nothing to do with the person inside Kelly's room who actually got murdered. It is perfectly clear that the police used the mutually supportive evidence of Prater and Lewis to arrive at a likely time of death for Kelly. They did not simply ditch this evidence and immediately revise their collective opinion with the arrival of Bond and his earlier time of death.

The Star accurately reported that the police subscribed to a later time of death than that provided by Bond, which means that however much they valued his report on the whole, they considered his time of death to be too much at odds with otherwise corroborative evidence. It also means that the interest that attached to Mary Cox's evidence had SOD ALL to do with Bond's clearly errant time of death.

But, of course, I relish the opportunity to reiterate this over and over again.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Dave.

Hi Jon
Once again, the very idea that Hutch had been dismissed because Bond decided the murder would have been perpetrated at 2:00 is utterly preposterous.

Hutchinson was not dismissed, that is where you are under the wrong impression.

Let me just point out what the Echo was suggesting.

”The importance which they then attached to it has since suffered diminution.”

Diminution only means “reduced in importance”, it does not mean dismissed or discredited. In the same paper we also read:

”From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now....”
The Echo, 13 Nov.

Reduced importance, that was all they meant. They said what they meant, and they meant what they said.
It is only later on the 15th that The Star exaggerate the situation by suggesting “discredit”, without due cause.

Hutchinson was not dismissed, nor discredited, nor labelled a liar, in fact the police were still following up on his lead, as evidenced by an immediate story on the 15th:

”Yesterday the police were busily occupied in endeavouring to obtain a clue to the identity and movements of the man with whom the woman Kelly was last seen, and a detailed description of whom has been published.”
Daily News, 15 Nov.

Once again it was the Echo which clued in to the fact the Met. Police had been pursuaded (induced) to realign their enquiries.

”The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement.”

Had the police found Hutchinson to be a liar before publication on the evening of the 13th then just like Packer that whole line of enquiry would have been dropped. However, two days later the Daily News reported the police were still pursuing that line of enquiry.

The intent of the Echo story then is clear. That Hutchinson had initially been the new prime witness, for something like 24 hrs. Then, at sometime over the 12th/13th the Met. Police had been pursuaded to show preference to Cox, in favour of Hutchinson.
"Induced" is a carefully chosen word which implies a change from within, instruction came down the chain of command. The most direct cause can be seen to lay with the estimate provided by Bond.
But Hutchinson was not dismissed, they were still following up.

And the police were still showing interest in person's wearing an Astrachan coat three weeks later. The tendency of a witness to fade from view is no different than that of Mrs Long, Israel Schwartz, or even Lawende. Who only reappeared in the Coles case.
There is nothing here to suggest Hutchinson suffered any different fate than that of all the witnesses, including Cox, who we also never hear of again, nor Blotchy as a suspect for that matter.

The case against Hutchinson is all smoke & mirrors. They who promote this smear campaign only see what they want to see. Unfortunately, I may have inadvertently sown the seeds for another smear campaign against Bond.

The common denominator here is that anyone who speaks out against the 'conspiracy' is automatically spoken down to. Contemporary witnesses who's words speak against it are branded liars. Newspaper interviews were unverified therefore wrong, and medical opinions were untrustworthy so ignored.
The end result being the 'conspiracy' refuses to accept anything which demonstrates the fallacy of their thinking.

As you can observe, even those who are usually so prompt to use all means against Hutch aren't exactly turning up their droves to defend your theory.

I think most posters are sick & tired of Hutchinson debates, so don't think that silence is a sign of concurence. And you are not talking with someone who looks for acceptance. This whole Anti-Hutchinson perspective has more to do with partisanship that impartial thinking.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Oh, so you do like the Star after all, Jon?

But only when they're offering their own completely irrelevant opinion about the sort of person you want Jack the Ripper to have been - "a gentleman", ordinarily engaged in "stocks and shares". Really? I hadn't bothered to notice your signature before, but it appears to confirm what I've suspected all along; that you have an image of the killer - a very controversial, sensationalist and unlikely one - which you're anxious to defend. That's why you champion those outrageous press accounts pertaining to spooky men wearing silk top hats ("Sarah Roney", "Mrs. Kennedy" etc), and that's why you pooh-pooh reliable inquest testimony of the order provided by Joseph Lawende and Mary Cox.

Your ripper is an educated, clerkly individual.

That's your dog in this hunt, isn't it?

You're certainly not the only poster around here who dismisses reliable evidence in favour of press tattle, who constantly eschews a criminalogical approach to the study of these crimes in accordance with the super-objective of turning Jack into an educated gent, but you might hold the distinction of being the least subtle of them, especially if that tag-line is anything to go on.

The police supported a later time of death than that suggested by Bond.

The police's apparent prioritization of Cox's evidence had nothing to do with Bond's suggested time of death.

There is no "smear campaign" against Bond. I've been one of his most vocal defenders, as I'd be happy to demonstrate with references to previous discussions. But if time of death can be difficult to ascertain even today, how do you suppose the medics of 1888 fared? You reject the time of death he offered too, remember?

[Hunter]

You're certainly not the only poster around here who dismisses reliable evidence in favour of press tattle...

That is certainly the truth.

Sometimes the only benefit of perusing these Kelly threads is the comic relief of watching folks from both sides of the fence trying to pick up a turd by the good end.

[Stephen Thomas]

The case against Hutchinson is all smoke & mirrors. They who promote this smear campaign only see what they want to see.

Quite so, Jon.

The bottom line is that if Hutchinson had been Kelly's murderer and/or Jack the Ripper he would never ever have approached the police.

[Ginger]

trying to pick up a turd by the good end.

That's an image that is going to stick with me...

-Ginger

[harry]

There are no guide lines that would establish whether a killer,any killer,would or would not approach police.Statistics might say that the majority do not,but history certainly proves that some do.Of the former,might be that many cannot visualise a connection being made between themselves and victim, while others are mindfull of direct links.Hutchinson appears to come somewhere in between .No telling how people of that caetegory might react.
Hard to see how Barnett,for instance, might have delayed.Yet he is still considered by some as a worthwhile suspect.

[Monty]

That is certainly the truth.

Sometimes the only benefit of perusing these Kelly threads is the comic relief of watching folks from both sides of the fence trying to pick up a turd by the good end.

Its just oh so addictive Cris, even for the intellectually challenged.

Monty

[DVV]

Hi Stephen

Quite so, Jon.

Certainly not. The discussion about Bond's TOD rather proves how biased are the anti-Hutch posters. Ready to hammer a gross mistake - which is what Jon is doing - or ready to let Jon get into deeper waters without pointing out a mistake that does not affect Hutch's candidacy specifically, but the whole police activity following the Miller's Court murder.

The bottom line is that if Hutchinson had been Kelly's murderer and/or Jack the Ripper he would never ever have approached the police.

Maybe so, but as long as you don't know who was Hutch, you can't know for sure.

[DVV]

folks from both sides of the fence trying to pick up a turd by the good end.

You've just pictured the way mankind is stepping in the turd millenium, my friend.

[Robert]

Oh, it's not what I thought. I imagined turds and fences must relate to some new discovery about JTR and Cadosch.

[FrankO]

Sometimes the only benefit of perusing these Kelly threads is the comic relief of watching folks from both sides of the fence trying to pick up a turd by the good end.

Nicely put, Chris. And funny to realise, too, that this isn't even a Kelly thread...