Tweet
Originally posted by Garry Wroe
View Post
Yes, and medical opinion is always preferred by Scotland Yard, but in this case the Time of Death window, even though broad, was still not broad enough to include 8 o'clock in the morning.
In offering this example of Medical Opinion vs Maxwell, you have at the same time justified the use of Dr. Bond's estimated Time of Death which also raised questions about Hutchinson's statement.
You appear to accept that medical opinion can cause doubts with Maxwell's story, but medical opinion cannot cause doubt with Hutchinson's story, perhaps you might explain that?
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.
In fact that article credits the police with them acknowledging two suspects. We at least agree that Hutchinson's statement may have become less significant 24 hours after it was first released, and this article does not change that.
The police are still pursuing two suspects.
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.
You have nothing to show that the police “jettisoned Hutchinson and his story”, let alone them having compelling reason to do so.
In both cases you are drawing conclusion from conjecture. What is more, you offer what can only be described as a circular argument.
The press dismiss Hutchinson, which, you say, is due to police opinion, and your proof of this police dismissal are the press reports? – circular argument!
Do you have anything else to support your belief?
Well, you have offered Anderson's view, that the “best” witness to have seen the killer was a Jew, so clearly not Hutchinson.
But then, it is not a forgone conclusion that Hutchinson did see the killer.
And, neither Schwartz nor Lawende can be said to have “certainly” seen the killer, even in the eyes of the police, so where does this leave Anderson's view?
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 …’
Well, Dr. Phillips wasn't talking, as usual.
You want proof, will the Echo do as a source?
-Dr. Phillips was especially emphatic in his desire that the investigations should not to be made known. Echo, 9 Nov.
-Up to the present the police refuse the Press any information. Echo 9 Nov.
-Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of the H Division, whose reticence is justified by an assurance he gave of secrecy. Echo, 10 Nov.
So we have no opinion from Dr. Phillips.
Prater, suggested the cry of murder must have been after 4 o'clock.
Cox, admitted to hearing nothing at all after 1 o'clock.
That paragraph from the Echo is blatantly inaccurate. You would do better if you read those testimonies yourself first before you blindly accept a press article as fact.
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.
“The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement.”
When you are “induced” to follow a line of inquiry, you have been persuaded, or directed, or required to follow the guidance of others.
This is another clue that the police had been influenced by some means to look again at the Cox suspect. Dr. Bond's report is such an instrument to “induce” Scotland Yard to divide their inquiries.
By the way, when the police are making enquiries in Lodging Houses, or Casual Wards, they are also looking for witnesses. They are asking the public if they were out on the night in question, did they see anything, etc.
The best place to deal with the public in one location is the Lodging House, or the Casual Ward. This doesn't mean they are only pursuing one suspect, and that this one suspect must be a dosser. They were also checking the Docks for Drovers, and Sailors, then the Lunatic Asylums, insane medical students, and so on.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the extant record is sympathetic to the notion that police continued to view Astrakhan as the likely murderer.
Nothing in the extant record indicates Hutchinson was disbelieved by the police.
Nothing suggests the police dismissed the Hutchinson suspect, and only pursued the Blotchy suspect.
Nothing in the extant record suggests Abberline was contacted by telegram to come to Commercial St. to take Hutchinson's statement.
Nothing exists to indicate that Abberline was even present when Hutchinson gave his statement.
Nothing has ever been produced to indicate that words attributed to Sarah Lewis by the press at the inquest contain any errors of contradiction with the Coroner's version.
All this is pure fantasy, the product of conclusion drawn from conjecture.
Should you ever happen to stumble across anything remotely resembling conventional evidence for any part of your hypothesis, please don't keep it a secret.
Most extraordinarily of all, you once argued that Astrakhan remained the prime suspect in the case even though Hutchinson’s story had been discounted.
As far out as 6 Dec. the press recognized that Abberline believed he had finally caught Astrachan.
Comment