Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Wickerman]

... You falsely claimed that Phillips endorsed Bond's suggested 1.00am time of death, ...

"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."

* * *

You conveniently fail to recall how insistent you were when discussing Lloyds Weekly News, that (in your words), "the latest report on the subject is the most accurate" (para).

To which I replied, was untrue.

Now, here you read for yourself one example which proved my case. A report offered by you, and falsely attributed to Dr Phillips (referring to 5-6 hours), followed by a later report (referring to 3 hours), which is demonstrably false.

Once again, the latest press report on any issue is not an indication of 'the truth'.

"Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of the H Division, whose reticence is justified by an assurance he gave of secrecy,...

Dr Phillips did not speak to the press.

[Ben]

You rudely and obstinately refuse to thank me for enlightening you on a subject you betray appallingly little knowledge of, and instead launch a futile attack. You falsely claimed that Phillips endorsed Bond's suggested 1.00am time of death, and when I point out how obviously untrue this was, you move onto another topic. You need to deal maturely with the fact that nobody buys into your weird notion that Bond's time of death (for Kelly) had any bearing on Hutchinson's discrediting.

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.

Those who live by newspaper stories are fated to die by newspaper stories

You mean like the obscure discredited bits of crap that appeared in a few papers, such as McCarthy supposedly (but not actually) seeing a "well-dressed" man with Kelly at Ringers, or that third-hand hearsay account about a "funny-looking man" seen inside the court? Or Mrs. Kennedy? Or Mrs. Paumier? Or Sarah Roney? As long as the press accounts support Jon's agenda that a well-dressed and educated man was Jack the Ripper, they can be treated as gospel. Otherwise...

That is a source we can take to the bank.

But you don't, do you?

The 1.00am time of death, which you wrongly insist the police believed in, is something you personally reject.

I-ron-eeee!

[Wickerman]

Shockingly enough, the police didn't publish abroad every "opinion" they ever held.

Then your claim that, "the Star accurately reported the detail that the police supported a later time of death" is based as usual, on 'nothing'?

You see, this comment you selected was published in the Times & Star on the 12th.
"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."

However, the very next day in the Echo & Star, Dr Philips is now credited with helping to prove that the murder occurred "shortly after 3:00am".

"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..."

I am consistently trying to impress on you how unreliable newspaper reports are, and here you see first hand how I prove my case.

And, not to rub salt in the wound, but we only need to turn to the official inquest record to see how false the above report is.
- Dr Phillips made no comment on the potential time of death.
- Mrs Cox said nothing in support of a murder occurring 'about 3:00am'.
- Mrs Prater did say, "... a kitten disturbed me about 3.30 to 4. I noticed the lodging house light was out so it was after 4 probably."

Those who live by newspaper stories are fated to die by newspaper stories

On the other hand, we are fortunate to have a bonafide estimate from official sources suggesting a time of death between 1:00-2:00am.

That is a source we can take to the bank.

[Ben]

Insist as you may, but you remain unable to post any official police opinion in support of your argument that they "supported" a later time of death.

Shockingly enough, the police didn't publish abroad every "opinion" they ever held. It would be handy for the modern researcher, but they weren't always available, and in their absence, we often have to make do with second best. In this regard, at least I have something with which to bolster the contention that the police supported a time of death that accorded with the Miller's Court witnesses. You, on the other hand, have absolutely nothing.

Dr Phillips collaborated with Bond in his report, so sayeth the press.
So where do you have Dr Phillips announcing a different time?

"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."

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

Remember that you've already accepted that Bond and Phillips "collaborated" on the grounds of "so sayeth the press", so you've effectively denied yourself the right to object to the above on the grounds that it's only a press report.

You still don't 'get' how the media works when they try to avoid specifics that don't really exist.

But you've demonstrated absolutely no knowledge or insight as to "how the media works".

Which is another completely unsubstantiated interpretation - guesswork.

Absolutely not.

It's the only acceptable deduction from the known facts.

It's just back luck for you that it has sod all to do with Hutchinson and Astrakhan.

[Wickerman]

In addition, the Star accurately reported the detail that the police supported a later time of death than that proffered by Dr. Bond.

Insist as you may, but you remain unable to post any official police opinion in support of your argument that they "supported" a later time of death.

The police evidently believed the cry of "murder" to have been uttered by the victim shortly before her death.

I rest my case.
"Evidently" is your way of saying, "I can't prove it, but I believe it".

But Dr. Phillips decided on a completely different time of death - four hours later than Bond's 1.00am or 2.00am,

Dr Phillips collaborated with Bond in his report, so sayeth the press.
So where do you have Dr Phillips announcing a different time?

They reported that "the authorities" were querying his failure to come forward before:

Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?

You still don't 'get' how the media works when they try to avoid specifics that don't really exist.

The claim that the police were looking for someone with a different appearance to Blotchy was completely untrue, but it was necessary subterfuge in order to put Galloway off the scent.

Which is another completely unsubstantiated interpretation - guesswork.
The reality is much simpler than you care to admit.

[Ben]

And in the interests of not turning every Kelly-related thread into a Hutch-fest - which is what you seem very intent on doing for some reason - I've brought the Galloway argument here:

"The constable was on point duty so not actively looking for anyone, and certainly not involved in any cloak & dagger operations."

I have no idea where you're getting "cloak and dagger" from. We are informed by the available evidence that the man suspected of being the Blotchy-faced character was, in reality, a "respectable citizen" who was "acting in concert" with the police. In order to facilitate this, it was obviously necessary for senior detectives to alert the unformed constables - "fixed point" or otherwise - of the man's role in case his movements are thwarted by members of the public, such as Galloway. Equally obvious was the necessity to avoid the man's cover being blown, and this relied on the constables having sufficient nous and initiative to provide a convincing and convenient excuse in the event of being grilled by a member of the public as to why they did not arrest the man.

The claim that the police were looking for someone with a different appearance to Blotchy was completely untrue, but it was necessary subterfuge in order to put Galloway off the scent.

But you would deny the obvious logic and truth in all of this in order to defend your latching onto this episode as "evidence" for the sustained interest in Hutchinson's Astrakhan man, which is most certainly is not.

[Ben]

And down like the proverbial lead balloon goes Jon's hypothesis that the "very reduced importance" had anything remotely to do with the police investing undue significance in Bond's time of death at the expense of all other eyewitness testimony (which they definitely did not). It doesn't work, Jon, so better to let it go rather than digging your heels in. Certainly don't keep repeating the same unconvincing spiel over and over as though it hasn't been picked thoroughly apart on numerous occasions already.

Hutchinson's discrediting had absolutely nothing to do with Bond's time of death, which was not accepted without question by the police. On the contrary, it is quite clear from other sources that the police considered the mutually corroborative evidence of Lewis and Prater to be a rough guide in that respect. The Echo makes perfectly clear the reasons for Hutchinson's evidence being "considerably discounted", and it involved his lateness in coming forward and the inevitable impact this had on his credibility. To extrapolate from the Echo report that Bond had anything remotely to do with the "very reduced importance" attached to Hutchinson's account would mean flying in the fact of what the article actually said.

In addition, 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.

What no-one outside official circles knew, so obviously not the press, was that Dr. Bond, apparently with the cooperation of Dr Phillips, had compiled a report on the wounds to Mary Kelly's body.

But Dr. Phillips decided on a completely different time of death - four hours later than Bond's 1.00am or 2.00am, if his opinion was accurately reported. So here we have another suggested time of death by another doctor, and thus a further indication that the police did not place all their investigative eggs in Bond's basket to the exclusion of other witnesses.

The Coroners Inquest is not a murder investigation, the Coroner merely needs to establish "the who, the where, the when & by what means" of the death of the victim.

Utterly irrelevant.

The fact that the inquest proceedings may not represent the totality of evidence collated does not mask the fact that Hutchinson did not come forward for three crucial days when he realistically have had the opportunity to do so. This is what the police evidently picked up on, since it carries such obvious negative implications with regard to his credibility.

The press speculate that it is because he did not appear at the inquest.

They did not speculate.

They reported that "the authorities" were querying his failure to come forward before:

Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?

Nothing to do with any of the Echo's own speculations. They were simply reporting on those of the police, as underscored the following day, when the same paper observed that the statement was:

"considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest in a more official manner"

This information was obtained "upon inquiry at Commercial Street Police station", where the truth about the origin of the two similar accounts (as published on the 13th and 14th November) was revealed to them. Since this conformation was only obtainable from police sources, it follows that the information regarding Hutchinson's "very reduced importance" was obtained at the same time, and was also true. Unless you want to argue that the Echo would deliberately sabotage a good relationship of communication with the police (and one denied to most other press sources) by printing falsehoods of the type the latter could easily read about, you'll recognise that all of this pulverises the argument that the press invented the detail that the authorities discredited Hutchinson's account.

Its all guesswork Abby, the police were telling them nothing.

I think you'll find Abby knows better than to invest any credence whatsoever in your hopeless misapprehension that the police never divulge case-related information to the press. We had a tediously long argument on another thread in which that naive notion was proven false, and I'm jumping at the chance to go through it all again.

[Wickerman]

Hi wick
And happy new years eve.
It seems that the very reduced importance attached to hutch the witness in the above press statement is due to "in light of later investigation" not the good doctors TOD as the police already had that by the time hutch came forward.

It seems fairly obvious to me anyway that the later investigation refers to further investigation of the police into hutch and his story, perhaps including information gained during the police walkabout with hutch.

Hutch lost credibility with the police is the most likely and reasonable conclusion.

Hi Abby.
And a Happy New Years Eve to you too

Isn't it natural that when the press are anxious to find a cause, but the police continue to tell them nothing, that the reason for a change of direction 'must' be due to the police finding something out later - hence they speculate, "In light of further investigations".
They are not going to write that the police just changed their minds.

What else could they say?

Its all guesswork Abby, the police were telling them nothing.

[Abby Normal]

The suggestion that Hutchinson's statement, perhaps within 24 hrs of him making it, suffered a 'very reduced' importance, is agreed to I think by both parties.
The question then becomes, "as a result of what?"

The press speculate that it is because he did not appear at the inquest.
This is incorrect, the police investigation does not rely exclusively on what evidence is produced at the Coroners Inquest. So we know this is false speculation.

The Coroners Inquest is not a murder investigation, the Coroner merely needs to establish "the who, the where, the when & by what means" of the death of the victim.
The police investigation of the murder is running on ahead of the Coroners Inquiry and does not rely on sworn testimony given to the Coroner.

This is where Ben's argument has gone off the rails, being misled by erroneous media speculation.

Given then, that the police are not limited by Inquest testimony, if Hutchinson's story has suffered in importance we must look for a more relevant cause.

What no-one outside official circles knew, so obviously not the press, was that Dr. Bond, apparently with the cooperation of Dr Phillips, had compiled a report on the wounds to Mary Kelly's body.

Within that report Dr Bond gave an estimated time of death stated to be between 1:00-2:00 am. This report was sent to the Home Office on the Saturday, but by the time the importance of this report had been discussed & digested perhaps over the weekend, Hutchinson had come forward Monday night and Abberline had accepted his story.

The change of heart, if such is true, occurred within the next 24 hrs. So we have here a bona fide reason to explain why Scotland Yard (in the form of Abberline) at first appeared to present Hutchinson as a primary witness, replacing Cox, only to learn within the next few hours that his story may not be as sound as first appears.
The police were now in the possession of a medical report which pointed directly at the Cox suspect as far as timing is concerned.

However, the police know from previous experience that medical opinion, valuable as it is, is not always 100% reliable. Hence, they cannot dismiss Hutchinson entirely, and they do not, as is demonstrated by the many newspaper reports in the next week or two which show the police still interested in the Hutchinson suspect.

Therefore, the very notion that Hutchinson was dismissed out of hand is demonstrably false. The cause of this false interpretation is the choice by a few to be unduly influenced by erroneous media speculation.

If we stick with what we know, the picture becomes a little easier to explain.
There never was any 'discrediting' by anyone, and certainly not by the police.
Much to their chagrin the police had two primary suspects to investigate, not just one.

Hi wick
And happy new years eve.
It seems that the very reduced importance attached to hutch the witness in the above press statement is due to "in light of later investigation" not the good doctors TOD as the police already had that by the time hutch came forward.

It seems fairly obvious to me anyway that the later investigation refers to further investigation of the police into hutch and his story, perhaps including information gained during the police walkabout with hutch.

Hutch lost credibility with the police is the most likely and reasonable conclusion.

[Wickerman]

It may pay to read the Echo'sreport in its full context. My underlinings:

"From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before? As many as fifty-three persons have, in all, made statements as to 'suspicious men', each of whom was thought to be Mary Janet Kelly's assassin. The most remarkable thing in regard to the latest statement is, that no one else can be found to say that a man of that description given was seen with the deceased, while, of course, there is the direct testimony of the witnesses at the inquest, that the person seen with the deceased at midnight was of quite a different appearance."

It would seem that the police were inundated with "witnesses", of which Hutchinson was but one in fifty-three. It also appears that, because Hutchinson's description was so at odds with all the others, that it was not made on oath, and because he came forward so late, his account came to be regarded with "reduced importance". A conclusion which, "in light of further investigation", seems to have been confirmed.

I should point out that this would not discredit Hutchinson per se, only his statement. If he was caught out in a lie, or made a genuine mistake, that does not make Hutchinson himself an incorrigible rogue... any more than the other 52 "witnesses" were.

The suggestion that Hutchinson's statement, perhaps within 24 hrs of him making it, suffered a 'very reduced' importance, is agreed to I think by both parties.
The question then becomes, "as a result of what?"

The press speculate that it is because he did not appear at the inquest.
This is incorrect, the police investigation does not rely exclusively on what evidence is produced at the Coroners Inquest. So we know this is false speculation.

The Coroners Inquest is not a murder investigation, the Coroner merely needs to establish "the who, the where, the when & by what means" of the death of the victim.
The police investigation of the murder is running on ahead of the Coroners Inquiry and does not rely on sworn testimony given to the Coroner.

This is where Ben's argument has gone off the rails, being misled by erroneous media speculation.

Given then, that the police are not limited by Inquest testimony, if Hutchinson's story has suffered in importance we must look for a more relevant cause.

What no-one outside official circles knew, so obviously not the press, was that Dr. Bond, apparently with the cooperation of Dr Phillips, had compiled a report on the wounds to Mary Kelly's body.

Within that report Dr Bond gave an estimated time of death stated to be between 1:00-2:00 am. This report was sent to the Home Office on the Saturday, but by the time the importance of this report had been discussed & digested perhaps over the weekend, Hutchinson had come forward Monday night and Abberline had accepted his story.

The change of heart, if such is true, occurred within the next 24 hrs. So we have here a bona fide reason to explain why Scotland Yard (in the form of Abberline) at first appeared to present Hutchinson as a primary witness, replacing Cox, only to learn within the next few hours that his story may not be as sound as first appears.
The police were now in the possession of a medical report which pointed directly at the Cox suspect as far as timing is concerned.

However, the police know from previous experience that medical opinion, valuable as it is, is not always 100% reliable. Hence, they cannot dismiss Hutchinson entirely, and they do not, as is demonstrated by the many newspaper reports in the next week or two which show the police still interested in the Hutchinson suspect.

Therefore, the very notion that Hutchinson was dismissed out of hand is demonstrably false. The cause of this false interpretation is the choice by a few to be unduly influenced by erroneous media speculation.

If we stick with what we know, the picture becomes a little easier to explain.
There never was any 'discrediting' by anyone, and certainly not by the police.
Much to their chagrin the police had two primary suspects to investigate, not just one.

[Sam Flynn]

I don't, for moment, suggest that the police dismissed Hutchinson as an "incorrigible rogue", bur rather one of the many untrustworthy witnesses who burden a police investigation.

Good-oh, Ben. That was broadly the point I wanted to make.

[Ben]

I'm not suggesting that the Tower of London episode reflects in any way poorly on Abberline as a detective. Plenty of detectives with more experience than Abberline have been fooled by plausible rogues over the decades since 1888, without it reflecting poorly on them either. I'm simply highlighting the pitfalls of investing unwarranted significance in the fact that Abberline "looked him the eye", as some are wont to to. Unless Abberline's insights into criminal psychology were commensurate with those of David Canter, there was the real and obvious risk of being "taken in" by a liar whose demeanour didn't strike any obvious bum note.

All the best,
Ben

[Hunter]

Another trap that interviewers can fall into is an over-reliance on outward and visible signs of "lying", and the false deduction that if these signs are absent in the subject, he or she must be telling the truth. Could Abberline have fallen into this trap? Well, one key piece of evidence suggests he might have done. In 1885 he interviewed a man suspected of being involved in the Tower of London Bombing, and discovered his guilt from the "hesitation in his replies and his general manner". Could Abberline's successful outing of a bad and possibly guilt-ridden liar have led to an over-reliance on his own ability to weed out all liars, even good ones who don't give the game away with hesitation and nervousness? The answer is yes, of course it could.

The man's accent aroused Abberline's suspicions as much as anything else in this instance and would have determined the line of questions that followed. This was also a situation (because a diligent PC had kept anyone from leaving) where Abberline realized that the culprit could still be on the premises. It would be unfair to judge this detective's investigative skills or his perceptions of those he interviewed from this one instance. Abberline interrogated hundreds of people during his career - each with its own unique circumstances for him to weigh and consider.

He was used to criminals "lying with conviction" so to speak, even if he was not familiar with the psychological nature of psychopaths.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

I understand your point, but the fact that the Echo specifically alluded to his failure to come forward before and present his evidence "on oath" is an obvious indication that the "very reduced importance" related to doubts about his credibility. It was reported in the same paper the following day that the statement was:

"considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest in a more official manner"

Not because the poor, hapless purveyor of truthful virtue made a genuine mistake (and I hope I'm still preaching to the choir on this one ). Significantly, the Star observed on the 15th that the statement was "now discredited", and somewhat significantly, this observation appeared under the heading "Worthless stories lead the police on false scents", which dealt mostly with Packer.

I don't, for moment, suggest that the police dismissed Hutchinson as an "incorrigible rogue", bur rather one of the many untrustworthy witnesses who burden a police investigation.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

What we have instead is a report that his statement had suffered a "very reduced importance" owing to reasons that were inextricably linked to the question of his credibility, or rather lack thereof.

It may pay to read the Echo'sreport in its full context. My underlinings:

"From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before? As many as fifty-three persons have, in all, made statements as to 'suspicious men', each of whom was thought to be Mary Janet Kelly's assassin. The most remarkable thing in regard to the latest statement is, that no one else can be found to say that a man of that description given was seen with the deceased, while, of course, there is the direct testimony of the witnesses at the inquest, that the person seen with the deceased at midnight was of quite a different appearance."

It would seem that the police were inundated with "witnesses", of which Hutchinson was but one in fifty-three. It also appears that, because Hutchinson's description was so at odds with all the others, that it was not made on oath, and because he came forward so late, his account came to be regarded with "reduced importance". A conclusion which, "in light of further investigation", seems to have been confirmed.

I should point out that this would not discredit Hutchinson per se, only his statement. If he was caught out in a lie, or made a genuine mistake, that does not make Hutchinson himself an incorrigible rogue... any more than the other 52 "witnesses" were.