The Red Handkerchief...

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

I’m not sure quite why we’re getting so bogged down in the “awfulness” of this off-topic issue. I don’t remember even citing this extract from his book as being a particularly problematic one. For all any of us know, he could simply have meant that he tripped over and fell on the floor that had yuckiness elsewhere on it. That’s an acceptable interpretation of his words, and it involves neither gore directly underfoot nor a pack of lies. Let’s face it; the floor was "awful". Indeed, the "awfulness of that floor" was plain to see, regardless of whether or those surveying it happened to be standing directly on a blood-stained bit. More perplexing, perhaps, is Dew’s failure to mention the piled-up flesh on the table at all, especially in the unlikely event that its drippage was responsible for his slippage. All he said about the table was that it was in a bad state of repair! I wonder how he’d react if he saw a unicorn leap over his garden hedge?: “Ooh, that privet needs a trim!”.

Regards,
Ben

Not interesting, Ben.

I made the observation that Dew could well be truthful about slipping and falling on the floor, since the flesh on the table could have dripped blood onto it. Nothing else.

After that, you have been trying your hand at all kinds of farcical escapes, avoiding to simply say:

Yes, blood would have dripped onto the floor from the flesh to some extent, and yes, Dew could have slipped in it and fallen.

There - not very difficult, is it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Cheers, Scott. I try!

Whether my comedy will work on Scandinavian Crossmerians remains to be seen, though.

[Scott Nelson]

...its drippage was responsible for his slippage.

Pretty funny, Ben. You're good.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

In spite of the Echo, themselves, in print, openly complaining that the police refuse to tell them anything worthwhile, you still choose to maintain that you know different.

Are you paying any attention to the actual content of the quotes you're producing? You can't be, because the ones you reference above are concerned solely with the issue of Kelly's mutilations. They complained that the police did not supply them with the full details pertaining to that particular issue. It is ludicrous to extrapolate from this that the police failed to discuss any case-related information with the press, especially when we know for a fact that they did, as the Hutchinson example perfectly and unquestionably demonstrates.

You are telling me that Dr Phillips offered his opinion on Kelly's time of death, "before" the Friday post mortem

No, I'm not.

(Sigh).

You've gone and misinterpreted yet another press article, and accuse me of recklessness instead - an accusation that must extend to Philip Sugden who arrived at precisely the same conclusion I did. Let us try and clear up your confusion. The autopsy – with Phillips in attendance – was conducted on the morning of Saturday 11th, whereas the Times article, in which Phillips expressed his view on the likely time of death, appeared the next morning. Phillips had already conducted the autopsy by the time he offered that opinion, and the autopsy itself was made reference to in the same interview as having occurred the previous morning. I have no idea where you informed the impression that Phillips ventured his opinion before the autopsy, but I think you’ll find yourself in the minority of opinion yet again.

Phillips’ reported opinion on the likely time of death was that it occurred between 5.00 and 6.00am or thereabouts. It does not accord in the slightest with that of Bond, and therefore does not help your brand new idea that Bond’s evidence was prioritized to the exclusion of others. Similarly, your assertion that Phillips shared Bond’s 1.00-2.00am is well known to be completely wrong.

"The police don't need to name him to confirm what is already public knowledge.
All they need to say was "yes".”

They wouldn’t have said “yes” - that’s the whole point. The police did NOT sanction the interview between Hutchinson and Central News. They did NOT sanction the public release of his identity. They would NOT, therefore, have advertised the fact that the “George Hutchinson” mentioned in the heavily embellished Central News interview was the same witness mentioned in the 13th November morning papers, which WAS provided by the police. The fact that they did so with the Echo exclusively assures us that some sort of relationship of trust existed.

“The revelation that the 13th and 14th November press reports had a common origin irrefutably qualifies as case-related “inside” information" and it was the type of information that only the police could have provided.

No, it most certainly does not, and was not.”

Yes it most certainly does, and was (multiplied by infinity, and more times than you’re capable of wrongly protesting to the contrary).

“Why would he think it was significant?”

I’m not saying he would. I’m saying that a hypothetical lie from hypothetical “captured” Mr. Astrakhan about fish and chips would not have “proved” him innocent, or anywhere close.

Hi Fisherman,

I’m not sure quite why we’re getting so bogged down in the “awfulness” of this off-topic issue. I don’t remember even citing this extract from his book as being a particularly problematic one. For all any of us know, he could simply have meant that he tripped over and fell on the floor that had yuckiness elsewhere on it. That’s an acceptable interpretation of his words, and it involves neither gore directly underfoot nor a pack of lies. Let’s face it; the floor was "awful". Indeed, the "awfulness of that floor" was plain to see, regardless of whether or those surveying it happened to be standing directly on a blood-stained bit. More perplexing, perhaps, is Dew’s failure to mention the piled-up flesh on the table at all, especially in the unlikely event that its drippage was responsible for his slippage. All he said about the table was that it was in a bad state of repair! I wonder how he’d react if he saw a unicorn leap over his garden hedge?: “Ooh, that privet needs a trim!”.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
You’re mistaken on two levels.

1) In concluding that Bond’s time of death was accepted without question as accurate,

Never made such a claim.
In fact the police are well aware that medical opinion is rarely a 100% certainty.

2) With your reference to a “pet theory” that I’m supposed to have.

Well, so long as I am only talking with you, it is your theory, not mine.

We also know that it is ludicrously unimaginative to claim that the police never share case-related information to the press. In a perfect world, perhaps.

All from the Echo, concerning the Kelly murder.

So reticent are the police in the matter,...

In spite of the extraordinary precautions taken by the police authorities to keep secret the facts connected with the dreadful mutilation,....

The police gave peremptory instructions to everyone not to allude to the circumstances in the faintest way. Dr. Phillips was especially emphatic in his desire that the investigations should not to be made known.
Up to the present the police refuse the Press any information.

In spite of the Echo, themselves, in print, openly complaining that the police refuse to tell them anything worthwhile, you still choose to maintain that you know different.

Yes, he was.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/times/18881112.html

"Against these statements is the opinion of Dr. George Bagster Phillips, the divisional surgeon of the H Division, that when he was called to the deceased (at a quarter to 11) she had been dead some five or six hours."

You are joking, right?
You are telling me that Dr Phillips offered his opinion on Kelly's time of death, "before" the Friday post mortem, "before" the official autopsy on Saturday, and "before" he and Dr Bond had been given sufficient time to calculate a reasonable medically based time of death?
In fact "before" he knew anything reliable about the murdered woman?

How would you describe such a reckless comment? - guesswork?

How about me borrowing one of your often used phrases, lets call it "lies & fabrication".

Really Ben, if you choose to use the words of a surgeon to support your theory, have the forethought to use an opinion given "after" an autopsy was performed, not "before".

Let me remind you of the words used by the Echo.
"Dr. Phillips was especially emphatic in his desire that the investigations should not to be made known."

The police cannot have avoided “naming the source” if they were specifically asked if the “George Hutchinson” named as the author of the account that appeared in various morning newspapers on the 14th was the same “witness” alluded to in the unattributed press account from a day earlier.

Ben, his name was already out there.
The police don't need to name him to confirm what is already public knowledge.
All they need to say was "yes".
Is that your confirmation that the Echo gained access to inside knowledge on an active murder case? - a simple "yes"?

The revelation that the 13th and 14th November press reports had a common origin irrefutably qualifies as case-related “inside” information" and it was the type of information that only the police could have provided.

No, it most certainly does not, and was not.

What if he'd bought the fish and chips himself for Kelly to eat (probably not in “pie” form!) and killed her afterwards, lying thereafter about the circumstances surrounding her last meal?

Why would he think it was significant?

I utterly stand by the assertion that Hutchinson’s statement can’t possibly be true and accurate precisely as he related it, but I also acknowledge that while lying is by far the most obvious and likely explanation for this, I can’t conclusively rule out (kan inte uteslutas!) other crap reasons like “confabulation” and “false memory” and other remote possibilities.

I think you just contradicted yourself there.