The Red Handkerchief...

[John G]

Hi John.
If you recall, Hutchinson did not see a watch, only a watch chain.

Joseph Isaacs used to wear an imitation gold watch chain, but only the chain. He couldn't afford a watch either - he used to steal them.

Hi Wickerman,

Yes, thanks, I'd forgotten that. And, of course, Richard has pointed out on the other thread that Francis Thompson was wearing an impressive new suit and coat at the time, as well as a black neck tie and wide-brimmed soft felt slouched hat- all bought from money he'd been given. He also wore his consecrated medal on a chain. And this was a man who was probably living in a homeless shelter, just yards away from Miller's Court! No doubt to a man like Hutchinson he would have seemed very impressively dressed.

I don't say that Thompson was Astrakhan Man, but I think these facts illustrate the importance of keeping an open mind, i.e. as regards the likelihood of an impressively dressed suspect being present in Miller's Court.

[John G]

For all the repeated hyperbolic rhetoric used to assert the dismissal of Hutchinson by the police, the only factual document that exists which would, both:
- Cause the murder investigation to divide into two lines of inquiry.
- Present an apparent lessening of importance initially afforded to Hutchinson.
is the report provided by Dr. Bond containing the estimated time of death for Mary Kelly.

Hypothetical theories adopted by a handful of members, which find no support of a tangible nature, certainly nothing official, do not even compete with the most likely scenario.

Hutchinson was never dismissed, his story became reduced in importance due to the receipt of medical opinion at Scotland Yard which enforced Cox's evidence.
From that moment on two separate lines of inquiry were pursued, as evidenced by the press, though both inquiries petered out over the next few weeks.

Yes, I completely agree. And Dr Bond was clearly a controversial figure whose opinions sometimes radically conflicted with that of his colleagues. For instance, he didn't believe that JtR demonstrated any anatomical knowledge at all whilst, in contrast, Dr Phillips took the view that Annie Chapman's killer demonstrated significant knowledge, possibly even surgical skill. And whereas four doctors concluded that Rose Mylett had been murdered, he believed that she'd died of natural causes. I seem to remember that the redoubtable coroner, Wynne Baxter, was pretty scathing in his dismissal of Dr Bond's conclusions.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

Yes, thanks, I'd forgotten that. And, of course, Richard has pointed out on the other thread that Francis Thompson was wearing an impressive new suit and coat, as well as a black neck tie and wide-brimmed soft felt slouched hat- all bought from money he'd been given. He also wore his consecrated medal on a chain. And this was a man who was probably living in a homeless shelter, just yards away from Miller's Court! No doubt to a man like Hutchinson he would have seemed very impressively dressed.

I don't say that Thompson was Astrakhan Man, but I think these facts illustrate the importance of keeping an open mind, i.e. as regards the likelihood of an impressively dressed suspect being present in Miller's Court.

Hi John.
Not sure if you remember this, but Bowyer also saw somebody who didn't quite fit the surroundings of Millers Court, later on Wednesday.

Harry Bowyer states that on Wednesday night he saw a man speaking to Kelly who resembled the description given by the fruiterer of the supposed Berner Street murderer. He was, perhaps, 27 or 28 and had a dark moustache and very peculiar eyes. His appearance was rather smart and attention was drawn to him by showing very white cuffs and a rather long white collar, the ends of which came down in front over a black coat. He did not carry a bag.
The Standard, 12 Nov. 1888.

Bowyer, once again saw another well dressed man loitering around Millers Court Friday morning.

Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid.
Echo, 14 Nov. 1888.

There is far more to this mystery than what remains in that shoebox at the National Archives.

[Wickerman]

Yes, I completely agree. And Dr Bond was clearly a controversial figure whose opinions sometimes radically conflicted with that of his colleagues. For instance, he didn't believe that JtR demonstrated any anatomical knowledge at all whilst, in contrast, Dr Phillips took the view that Annie Chapman's killer demonstrated significant knowledge, possibly even surgical skill. And whereas four doctors concluded that Rose Mylett had been murdered, he believed that she'd died of natural causes. I seem to remember that the redoubtable coroner, Wynne Baxter, was pretty scathing in his dismissal of Dr Bond's conclusions.

Hi John.
The report by Dr. Bond may not be entirely his own opinion.
One press account, vague as usual, alludes to the possibility that the report was a joint product by both Phillips & Bond.

" Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of the H Division, whose reticence is justified by an assurance he gave of secrecy, has copious notes of the result of the post-mortem examination, and with nearly every conclusion at which he has arrived. Dr. Thomas Bond, of Westminster, a well-known expert on crimes of violence, agrees. Dr. Phillips has only vaguely indicated to the local police the result of his investigations, but a report on the question has, it has been asserted, been jointly made by him and Dr. Bond, and submitted to Sir Charles Warren."
Echo, 10 Nov. 1888.

The police are compelled to take official medical opinion into consideration, especially as this would come from Anderson's office.
Abberline may be torn between this controversial medical estimate, and the conviction of Hutchinson when telling, and re-telling his story.
We read:
".....it may be said that notwithstanding examination and re-examination by the police, the man's story cannot be shaken, and so circumstantial and straightforward were his assertions that the police believe they have at length been placed in possession of facts which will open up a new line of investigation..."
Daily News, 13 Nov. 1888.

On the one hand Hutchinson's conviction, and on the other hand preferred medical opinion, create a dilemma for the investigation team, they both cannot be right, yet both could be wrong.

[John G]

Hi John.
Not sure if you remember this, but Bowyer also saw somebody who didn't quite fit the surroundings of Millers Court, later on Wednesday.

Harry Bowyer states that on Wednesday night he saw a man speaking to Kelly who resembled the description given by the fruiterer of the supposed Berner Street murderer. He was, perhaps, 27 or 28 and had a dark moustache and very peculiar eyes. His appearance was rather smart and attention was drawn to him by showing very white cuffs and a rather long white collar, the ends of which came down in front over a black coat. He did not carry a bag.
The Standard, 12 Nov. 1888.

Bowyer, once again saw another well dressed man loitering around Millers Court Friday morning.

Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid.
Echo, 14 Nov. 1888.

There is far more to this mystery than what remains in that shoebox at the National Archives.

Hi Wickerman,

Thanks for this information, very interesting. I was unaware of Bowyer's account. William Marshall also refers to the suspect he saw in Stride's company as being well-dressed, having the appearance of a clerk; he further noted that the man had an educated voice. And earlier Best and Gardner refer to seeing Stride with a respectfully dressed man. In fact, they actually stated that they were astonished to see the man kissing and cuddling Stride, because his behaviour seemed inappropriate, i.e considering his well-dressed appearance.

[John G]

Hi John.
The report by Dr. Bond may not be entirely his own opinion.
One press account, vague as usual, alludes to the possibility that the report was a joint product by both Phillips & Bond.

" Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of the H Division, whose reticence is justified by an assurance he gave of secrecy, has copious notes of the result of the post-mortem examination, and with nearly every conclusion at which he has arrived. Dr. Thomas Bond, of Westminster, a well-known expert on crimes of violence, agrees. Dr. Phillips has only vaguely indicated to the local police the result of his investigations, but a report on the question has, it has been asserted, been jointly made by him and Dr. Bond, and submitted to Sir Charles Warren."
Echo, 10 Nov. 1888.

The police are compelled to take official medical opinion into consideration, especially as this would come from Anderson's office.
Abberline may be torn between this controversial medical estimate, and the conviction of Hutchinson when telling, and re-telling his story.
We read:
".....it may be said that notwithstanding examination and re-examination by the police, the man's story cannot be shaken, and so circumstantial and straightforward were his assertions that the police believe they have at length been placed in possession of facts which will open up a new line of investigation..."
Daily News, 13 Nov. 1888.

On the one hand Hutchinson's conviction, and on the other hand preferred medical opinion, create a dilemma for the investigation team, they both cannot be right, yet both could be wrong.

Hi Wickeman,

Yes, as I noted on the other thread, I believe the medical testimony, regarding time of death, needs to be considered with caution: there were a lot of factors they had to take into account and, unlike the other victims, Kelly's body was discovered a significant time after she was murdered. Ultimately, we're relying on the opinion of Victorian GPs, which clearly doesn't carry the same force as a modern CSI team.

In fact, even the normally decisive Dr Bond was unusually equivocal: he did state that between 1 and 2 am was, in his opinion, the most probable time of death, but in theory it could have been anytime between 2 and 8 am. In fact, his estimate of 1 and 2 seems to be based on little more than a guesstimate of when she had her last meal. I believe it has also been argued that he failed to consider the impact of the bitterly cold evening on body temperature in his calculations.

I agree about Hutchinson's conviction; he was remarkably consistent in his evidence. I've mentioned this before but it's worth repeating: Sugden (2002) noted at least 40 points of similarity between his press account and police statement, compared with a mere two discrepancies.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“We are not talking about "the police", we are talking about what the Echo were able to learn, and they were not able to share much with their readers, a few hints here and there, but nothing convincing.”

But you have many wacky theories to defend which rely on the Echo’s report not being accurate, and as such, it neither surprising nor particularly relevant that you don’t find it “convincing”. You need to remember, though, that neither the police nor the press were pitching a theory to a bunch of “ripperologists” in 2015; the former were simply passing on a relatively trivial detail regarding the discrediting of yet another dud witness, and the latter were reporting it. There just wasn’t enough interest to warrant the need for the grand conspiracy of silence that you seem to be envisaging. I have no problem at all with the concept of “parallel lines of inquiry” (again, where does this “quote” come from?); it just doesn’t apply to the “lines” we’re discussing here, because one "line" continued to be investigated, while the other was discarded.

“It is in the interests of the press to word their stories so as to make the reader 'think' they know more than they do.”

They did not, at stage, pretend to be in possession of all details associated with Hutchinson’s discrediting. They simply observed that it happened as a result of doubts surrounding his credibility. You doubt the accuracy of this report on the basis of some very warped logic, which inexplicably asserts that the police will either supply every single piece of information OR no information at all, ignoring the fact that the press will typically supply the police with only the basics, i.e. here’s what happened, here is why it happened, and if pushed for further details “no further comments at this time”. It doesn’t make it huge lie conjured up by the police for no good reason.

I think you’ll find “Commercial Street police station” is a specific as specific a source for the information pertaining to Hutchinson’s “considerably discounting”.

“No, I am still waiting for you to show the Echo printed something of value, something above a "nod", or passing remark, or a brush-off comment.”

But it’s your boringly repetitive dismissal of the Echo’s clear report (based as it was on a proven communication with the police) that’s truly without “value”, in my opinion.

“A story that now has a "very reduced importance" can easily be deduced by monitoring Detectives making inquiries about the Cox suspect as well as the Hutchinson suspect, instead of exclusively the Hutchinson suspect, as they expect.”

But that’s a ludicrous deduction that no sane human being would ever dream of making, and moreover, it has nothing at all do with the actual reason – provided by the police – for the “very reduced importance” attached to Hutchinson’s account. If the press noted that Cox’s suspect was being pursued in addition to Astrakhan man, the only logical deduction is that both witnesses were “of importance”, in which case there was nothing preventing the Echo from reporting as much. But that’s absolutely not what the Echo discovered, which was that one of these witnesses – Hutchinson – had been “very reduced” in importance because of doubts surrounding his credibility (and before any nonsense is posted to the contrary, a failure to come forward earlier and present evidence on oath is inextricably linked to honesty and credibility).

The Echo did not need to “interpret” – they were informed directly, and they certainly didn’t lie about that they were told (for what possible reason?), or else they could wave a permanent goodbye to the good relationship they evidently had with the police – one that involved journalists from that newspaper being received by detectives at Commercial Street police station. Contrary to your latest baffling assertion, neither Bond nor Hebbert were known to occupy offices at the police station, which makes it very unlikely – if not impossible – that it was the doctors who supplied the Echo with the information. It was no business of Bond to query Hutchinson’s late evidence and no-show at the inquest, in any case.

“You are talking about the official Press Release, of course, this is intentional.”

No, I’m not.

I’m not talking about any such thing, and I don’t appreciate the misrepresentation.

I’m talking about police leaks and clandestine disclosures that happen all the time over the course of your average investigation, quite contrary to your startling declaration that it never happened at any stage during the ripper investigation.

“You are also guessing that his 'delay' could not have been verified that same night, which is amusing when you don't know what the reason for the delay was.”

Do enlighten me then, Jon. What excuse for the “delay” might Hutchinson have provided that could have been verified between his first meeting with Abberline and the submission of the latter’s report later that night? Did the police track down a Romford locksmith who dutifully confirmed that silly old Hutch had locked himself in his stables for three days (Sally’s favourite!)?

“Of course they didn't abandon the hunt, they never bothered to publish this description though, did they. Not like that of Astrachan.
Now you know why, the description given by Cox was too generic”

For crying out loud, Jon, the reason the police didn’t publish the Cox description themselves was because they knew full well that virtually every newspaper had already published their coverage of the inquest, which included a full description of the Blotchy suspect. Hutchinson did not appear at the inquest, which meant that if the police wished for his description to be circulated, they had to engineer it themselves – unless they were quite happy at the prospect of Hutchinson blabbing to the press behind their backs (which was what happened). I’m sorry, but “too generic” my pink spotty behind. If you have any evidence for the assertion that a “fifth of the male adults in Whitechapel” were 36 years old, 5’5” in height, with fully carroty moustaches and blotchy complexions, I’d be fascinated to see it.

“In Hutchinson's case all they had to do was send an officer around to Sarah Lewis. The basic outline of his story could be verified within the hour.”

This is infuriating nonsense.

Really, it is.

Sarah Lewis saw a man standing alone on Dorset Street, and unbeknownst to Hutchinson, the likelihood is that she would not have been able to recognise the man again. So in the epically unlikely event that Lewis was invited to view Hutchinson as the wideawake man, she would either have said “don’t know, can’t remember” or “yes, it might have been this man”, in which case the best the police could possibly have achieved was an extremely lukewarm “confirmation” that Hutchinson was standing on Dorset Street at 2:30am. How on earth was she in any position to confirm any more of Hutchinson’s statement beyond his presence there at a brief moment in time (and your answer will not include so much of a squeak about the Daily News and that erroneous “passing up the court” rubbish)?

Again, are you still of the opinion that witnesses whose stories cannot be confirmed are kept in lifelong captivity?

“Correct, and this is due to the fact he was believed.
Had he not been believed, the story would have been quite different.”

Nope, it was due to the fact that he was discredited as a time-waster and never considered in the capacity of suspect. I double-dare you to repeat the “automatic suspect” argument – go on!

“At some point that same night this description was sent to a Press Agency for broad distribution - this version carried the errors.
The erroneous version is not Hutchinson's fault.”

Says you, but according to what evidence? And how is it realistically possible to turn “pale” into its polar opposite, “dark”, by pure accident? And don’t you think it’s an interesting coincidence that the very same “errors” – which, according to you, were “not Hutchinson’s fault” – also appeared the next day in the report of Hutchinson’s interview with a press agency journalist?

“What conceivable reason would Hutchinson have to make any changes, it's not like the press are going to keep it a secret”

I wasn’t likely to have been a conscious change. It would simply a case of him misremembering what he had lied about the first time, and then coming up with a different lie. If Hutchinson had seen a real person with a real moustache, on the other hand, it is difficult to understand how he could have provided polar opposite descriptions of it.

“And, as for the Sunday morning policeman, Hutch never told police that he didn't go to the market on Sunday morning.
Extra detail is not proof of a change of detail.”

That’s an extremely creative use of the double-negative there. Unfortunately, it overlooks a rather more important point; why, if Hutchinson had visited Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning and had seen the same suspect again, did he mention nothing of the episode to the police? You either have to accept the inconsistency or chalk the whole “Sunday policeman” episode up to a press embellishment. You can’t do both, I’m afraid.

“Well, you don't know what the police were thinking the first day Schwartz came forward to tell his story. He did have a fixed address, and doubtless a place of employment, none of which could be supplied by Hutchinson. If they had any suspicions at all, at least they knew where they could find him. This detail seemed to be common among those detained by police, so long as they could verify their story, or who they were, the police let them leave.”

So, let me attempt to get my head around what you’re suggesting here:

If you have a home and work address, you’re free to do as you please, regardless of how suspicious you might otherwise appear. Whereas, if you’re not regarded as suspicious but can’t verify your account for whatever reason, you’d better have a “fixed address” and a “place of employment”, otherwise you can expect to remain a life-long prisoner? It sounds an awful lot like you’re making it up as you go along. What silly buggers the police were then for merely keeping Kosminski under “surveillance”. Didn’t they realise they could simply have thrown him in the dungeon until he was able to provide proof of his innocence? Well, according to you, anyway…

“Oh, I didn't realize you were suggesting Lawende, Levy & Harris all carved Eddowes up together.”

Yes, Jon, that is obviously what happened. Which means they could not have provided alibis for each other – get it?

“Exactly, and how do we know this? - because we have highly detailed accounts from inside sources – remember Julian Assange, did he release vague insinuations, did he refer to unnamed “authorities”, or vague “investigations”?”

I completely don’t care.

All you have to take on board is that police information gets leaked to the press occasionally, particularly in high-profile investigations. Everyone agrees with me on that score. Nobody agrees with you. Sorry to have to play that card again, but come on, it must tell you something.

“Neither you nor Garry can find anything in the press to substantiate your beliefs. You are desperate to believe it, but you have nothing to show for your belief.”

I see you are now reduced to repeating wishy-washy generalized pronouncements in lieu of actual arguments. Maybe I should try that – both myself and Garry have successfully and irrefutably demonstrated that Hutchinson’s statement was discarded.

“The IPN, as with all the press were able to see the investigation proceding on the streets.
What on earth are you going on about “accurate case related.”..etc.?”

I’m quoting you directly – that’s what I’m “going on about”. You used the phrase “accurate case-related inside information”, claiming falsely that no press source had access to it, and yet now you’re attempting to suggest that the claims made in the IPN regarding the supposed ongoing Astrak-hunt were both “accurate” and “case-related”. You suggest that the latter paper gained their information from the streets, but then that was your excuse for dismissing the Echo’s claim with regard to the loss of interest in Hutchinson. “It’s probably false because it came from the streets”, says Jon of the Echo, but then “it’s probably true because it came from the streets”, says Jon if the IPN. You are awash with inconsistency.

“If you read it carefully, the Echo learned that, “the elaborate description” is virtually the same as that previously published.”

Which could easily imply to the casual observer that two people had seen the same individual, and that the two descriptions are “virtually” the same because the person being described was wearing exactly those clothes. The police would not have been anxious for it to become “public knowledge” that a description that they had been responsible for circulating had “proceeded from the same source” as an entirely unsanctioned press interview, which contained numerous embellishments. On the contrary, they would have sought to distance themselves from the 14th November account. The relevant point, which you keep trying to bury in more and more rubble, is that the police imparted accurate information to the Echo after receiving them at Commercial Street police station. Would they then publish lies about the reason for Hutchinson’s “very reduced importance”, knowing full well that the consequence of such action would have been an embargo on any future audiences with the police? The answer is absolutely no way.

Here, read it yourself:
The importance of this description lies (so says the morning papers) in the fact that it agrees with that furnished to the police yesterday, but which was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner. There is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson's veracity.

All three reasons in that short paragraph are attributed to the morning papers. The Echo make no suggestion (as you can see) that they obtained any of those reasons from the police. This is your imagination working overtime again.

The "morning papers" are the ones declaring that there is not the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson's veracity, despite the fact the police had "considerably discounted" Hutchinson's statement "because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner".

If you're suggesting that it was the other way round, I have a challenge for you: find my a single morning paper that reported that Hutchinson's statement had been discounted for that reason. Then you might be interested in reading the great many newspapers claiming that there is no reason for doubting Hutchinson's veracity, or words to that effect.

Hopefully, you'll be diabused of your vast confusion thereafter.

Best regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

You berate others for 'guessing'; yet that's exactly what you're doing - and wildly, at that.

Not for guessing, for insisting their guesswork is 'proven'.
Everybody resorts to guesswork at some point, but very few, usually the same few, insist their guesswork is proven.

[GUT]

Not for guessing, for insisting their guesswork is 'proven'.
Everybody resorts to guesswork at some point, but very few, usually the same few, insist their guesswork is proven.

Sums it up in a nutshell to me, we often have to guess, rely on logic or experience but that is a whole different ball game than, "Proven".

[Sally]

Jon,

Please don't use my posts to you to make yet another thinly-veiled criticism of Ben and Garry - whose arguments regarding Hutchinson have thus far been better supported by the evidence than your own.

You've quoted me out of context - in case you've forgotten, I was criticising you - without any requirement for a veil, thin or otherwise - for your unsupported inferences regarding Isaacs, which I see you are disinclined to address.

So, once again, before you start criticising others for presenting theory as fact, you might consider abstaining from it yourself - otherwise you're likely to be accused of hypocrisy.

[Garry Wroe]

So we have Ben claiming that Hutchinson was dismissed due to suspicions that the police couldn't prove, and Garry saying his dismissal was on the basis of solid evidence?

Investigators were unable to prove that Carrie Maxwell didn't see Kelly on the morning of 9th November, but medical and other evidence provided a clear indication as to the impossibility of this sighting.

Ben and I recognize that police did not entirely trust Hutchinson’s account by Tuesday, 13 November (the date of the Echo’s ‘diminution’ story), and had dismissed it altogether by the time the Star published its ‘worthless stories’ report two days later. I have merely stated that investigators would never have jettisoned Hutchinson and his story without first having compelling reasons for so doing, an assertion based upon the police procedures of the time. Contrary to your claim, therefore, there is no disagreement between Ben and I. But even if there were, what of it? Are you suggesting that a difference of opinion between Ben and I would lend credence to your Isaacs scenario? If so, you are very much mistaken.

I would suggest that you abandon the strategy of attempting to make the evidence fit the hypothesis. It simply doesn’t work. The Echo of 13 November encapsulated the police thinking at that time: ‘Dr. Phillips' evidence, together with that of Mary Anne Cox, Elizabeth Prater, and others, proves that the murder was committed shortly after three o'clock …’ This piece, moreover, makes it perfectly clear that the Met viewed Blotchy as the prime suspect in the Kelly murder, which explains the press reports from later in the week detailing police raids on low lodging houses and casual wards.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the extant record is sympathetic to the notion that police continued to view Astrakhan as the likely murderer. Neither is there the slightest evidence that Bond’s interpretation of events eventually persuaded Anderson to change the investigative focus from Astrakhan to Blotchy. Nor is there any foundation for the assertion that Isaacs was the factor which persuaded Abberline to abandon his belief that Astrakhan was the killer. All of this is a fantasy. The reality is that Hutchinson’s account was viewed as suspicious by Tuesday, 13 November. Two days later it had been disregarded altogether. Were this not so, you would never have felt the need to reinvent the evidence of Sarah Lewis, nor promote Mrs Kennedy to the status of stellar witness, nor resort to pure invention with regard to Anderson’s case-related thinking. Most extraordinarily of all, you once argued that Astrakhan remained the prime suspect in the case even though Hutchinson’s story had been discounted.

Staggering. Truly staggering.

As I’ve already said, your attempts to disregard and distort the evidence in order to sustain what in reality is a woefully weak hypothesis have proved unconvincing to an overwhelming majority. Perhaps it’s time to stop blaming this majority for its failure to see things your way and get back to basics. By this I mean assess the available evidence in a logical, systematic and objective manner and see where it takes you.

But I’m not holding my breath.

And nor, I suspect, is anyone else.

[Garry Wroe]

You've quoted me out of context ...

If you think you've got it bad, Sally, try putting yourself in Sarah Lewis's shoes.

[Sally]

If you think you've got it bad, Sally, try putting yourself in Sarah Lewis's shoes.

Indeed, Garry. Ah - if only Sarah Lewis had been as observant as Hutchinson allegedly was on that night it'd be case closed and Isaacs down in history as the last-person-to-see-Kelly-alive-but-not-the-murderer-of-course [because that was Druitt, naturally]; but as it is, she's just another pawn on the Dorset Street chessboard for Team Exonerate.

What can you do?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Wickeman,

Yes, as I noted on the other thread, I believe the medical testimony, regarding time of death, needs to be considered with caution: there were a lot of factors they had to take into account and, unlike the other victims, Kelly's body was discovered a significant time after she was murdered. Ultimately, we're relying on the opinion of Victorian GPs, which clearly doesn't carry the same force as a modern CSI team.

In fact, even the normally decisive Dr Bond was unusually equivocal: he did state that between 1 and 2 am was, in his opinion, the most probable time of death, but in theory it could have been anytime between 2 and 8 am. In fact, his estimate of 1 and 2 seems to be based on little more than a guesstimate of when she had her last meal. I believe it has also been argued that he failed to consider the impact of the bitterly cold evening on body temperature in his calculations.

I agree about Hutchinson's conviction; he was remarkably consistent in his evidence. I've mentioned this before but it's worth repeating: Sugden (2002) noted at least 40 points of similarity between his press account and police statement, compared with a mere two discrepancies.

Hi JohnG

Except for discrepancy of in the press account he now says he followed them into the court and stands outside her apartment.

HUGE discrepancy IMHO. Especially coming from a man who could recite the complicated ambulations and intereactions of himself, Kelly, and Aman like he was reading a script.

[John G]

Hi JohnG

Except for discrepancy of in the press account he now says he followed them into the court and stands outside her apartment.

HUGE discrepancy IMHO. Especially coming from a man who could recite the complicated ambulations and intereactions of himself, Kelly, and Aman like he was reading a script.

Hello Abby,

Yes, I agree, this is definitely a problem. I would speculate that the press report may have been inaccurate, or that Hutchinson exaggerated to make himself seem more heroic.

Of course, there were discrepancies between the newspaper version of Schwartz's evidence and the official police report. For example, in the newspaper version we're informed that the second man, presumably Pipeman, rushed forward with a knife as if to attack Scwartz, after shouting a warning to BS man. Interestingly, The Star also states that an interpreter was used, so you would think that the report should be reasonably accurate. Mind you, Abby, I think at this juncture I should stop writing about Scwartz in case I get a sudden urge to write the word "cachous"!

Of course, another possibility is that Hutchinson lied!