If Mrs. Maxwell Didn't See Mary Who Did She See?

[Simon Wood]

I'm sorry your brain hurts.

The DT report tells us that Phillips was cognizant of something important enough to share with the Coroner, but not at liberty to divulge to the general public via the press. It also offers another reason for his silence: that Phillips was working secret squirrel for the Home Office and that it was not within his gift to spill the beans.

Pall Mall Gazette, Saturday 10th November 1888—

“There is no disposition on the part of the police officers at Commercial Street police station to correct any of the conflicting statements which have been made by the newspapers, or to supply further particulars.”

Echo, 10th November 1888—

“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."

Yes indeed. They agreed on most things except the T.O.D.

What could possibly have happened to Phillips' notes?

[Wickerman]

...
Echo, 10th November 1888—

“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."

Yes indeed. They agreed on most things except the T.O.D.

The report we have by Dr. Bond, which that quote above is referring to, certainly offers an estimated time of death.
Given that the Kelly case was the jurisdiction of Dr. Phillips, I had to wonder if Bond was likely to offer a time of death completely at odds with the official autopsy report by Dr Phillip?
Would such a move raise questions about his own credibility, or the credibility of his peer Dr Phillips?
On the other hand, maybe this detail was agreed to by both doctors, as we have no quote from Phillips concerning his time of death estimate.

You apparently think Dr Phillips disagreed?

What could possibly have happened to Phillips' notes?

These 'notes' are the official autopsy report - what happened to it?, who knows....

[jerryd]

There were some interesting coincidences happening in regard to a certain George Hutchinson and the Cleveland Street Scandal later in 1889. In early September 1889 Arthur Newton (solicitor to Somerset) was preparing passage to Australia for young men involved in the scandal to leave town. On November 9th, 1889 an arrest warrant was issued for Somerset. He would escape the country unscathed. On 13 September, 1889, a George Hutchinson boarded the steamship Ormuz headed for Australia. He was later arrested for exposing himself to two young boys. Kinda reminisent of the Cleveland Street issues. A few days prior to this GH’s departure, the Pinchin Torso was deposited under the arch.

[jerryd]

Also, a prominent Post Office official visited the murder scene at Miller’s Court. Algernon Allies, who was under protective custody of Abberline in a coffee shop near Mitre Square, had been receiving hush money from Lord Somerset via Postal Orders in the Cleveland Street affair.

The visit of the Postal Official is interesting due to the fact the CSS involved the Post Office as did the template for it’s blackmail scheme at Dublin Castle in 1884. The same year MJK supposedly left for a “gay house” in the West End of London.

[jerryd]

I was way off topic. I reacted to another post in the thread thinking it was a different topic. Sorry

[DJA]

Meh.

You are on the right track.

You left out the unexplained child living with Hutchinson.

Suspect Mary Ann Kelly left the gay house in 1885. Just a suspicion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labouchere_Amendment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_Case_of_Dr_Jekyll_and_Mr_Hyde

[miss marple]

I am at a loss. What has Robert Louis Stevenson got to do with the death of Mary Kelly? And the Cleveland St Scandal. A gay house was a brothel, who was a Mary Ann Kelly who left a brothel in 1885?
Elucidate please!!

miss marple

[DJA]

If you read RLS's novella first,I will explain second.

Several of the characters were based on real people ..... Inspector Newcomen was RLS's cousin,Dr Jekyll was Sir William Withey Gull,Hyde was his protege who lived next door and also lived in that square in Soho.
Who was the young girl that was trampled?

[DJA]

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/42

[miss marple]

Thanks Dave,
Although I know the story l have never actually read it, so that will be helpful.

miss marple

[DJA]

Reread it between posts.
It is still confusing.
RLS was ill,likely on drugs and either does not have his facts right or is avoiding a libel suit.
He possibly had Sarcoidosis and was looking for a London specialist.
His cousin https://www.casebook.org/police_officials/po-smith.html possibly clued him up on Henry Gawen Sutton's history in the late 1860s.
Mary Ann/Jane Kelly would have been around 8 or 10 at the time,being 29 when murdered.

Henry Jekyll, M.D., D.C.L., L.L.D., F.R.S., etc is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Gull

Off the novella for the time being ..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...iety_G,_H,_I#G

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ewart_Gladstone

The Society met during the murders. I don't doubt WE Gladstone's source for his "Jack the Ripper is conducting research" letter to The Times.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Simon. Pardon my comments, but is the heat getting to you? Are you trying to incite a police riot?

Dr. Phillips spoke with Stuart-Wortley on the night of the 10th.

Hutchinson didn't come forward until the night of the 12th--6 pm to be precise--and before that, the vague account of a wall lounger in Dorset Street was just that--a vague account not particularly different from other vague accounts at other murder sites. It certainly didn't have the power to shake and shudder the ponderous machinery of government into action.

In short, Phillips' comments to Stuart-Wortley had nothing to do with Hutchinson or his suspect who were not even blips on the radar.

Dr. Phillips was a medical man and the information he shared would have been medical, and not investigative.

In fact, you've already answered your own question. All Phillips told the Home Office is what we already know from Bond's report: the victim's heart was missing and the murderer could not have escaped Millers Court without being heavily bloodstained.

Ergo, in a crowded area like East London, it was highly likely that someone would have noticed a bloodstained man fumbling around with a human heart: a landlady, a wife, a laundress, the boy who brings toast and tea at breakfast. The reward was a way of coaxing them forward or reassurring them that they would be protected.

The 'circumstance' at Millers Court was the blood. It was everywhere.

Anderson alludes to the affair in his memoirs. The murderer was bloodstained and thus must have been noticed and protected by his 'people,' and this means, in the charming mind of Dr. Robert, that they must have been Jews because Heaven knows Jews don't hand over their slobbering blood-stained psychotics to Gentiles.

The Daily Telegraph's snide reference to the Home Office was just a reminder to the readership that Dr. Phillips' paychecks were signed by the government, and thus we shouldn't expect him to share his vast knowledge with the common herd., ie., the public.

Stay cool if you can. RP

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

Cooler than a cat in an ice cream store, thanks.

Dr. Phillips met with Stuart-Wortley on the evening of 9th November.

In his 10th November report to Robert Anderson, Dr. Bond opined— “There is no evidence that he [the murderer] had an accomplice," yet on the same day Sir Charles Warren offered a pardon to an accomplice.

The police don't need my help to incite a riot.

Hope you're safe and well.

Regards,

Simon

[rjpalmer]

"During the course of last evening Dr. G. B. Phillips visited the House of Commons, where he had a conference with the Under-secretary for the Home Office, Mr. [C.B.] Stuart-Wortley." 11-10-88


Yes, Simon, I misstated the date. The Brits and their backwards (but superior) dating system. The 9th it was, so even less time for the wall lounger to find his way into the consciousness of the Met, no?

[Wickerman]

Well, here's two penn'orth worth.

I see Bond as saying there is no evidence at the crime scene of the presence of more than two people in the room - just the victim and the assailant.

The detectives will not discuss witness statements taken by them with the doctor. So Bond is not talking about anyone seen acting suspiciously, or even a lookout. Neither is he speculating about the assailant having the help of family or friends.
So I see no conflict between what Bond wrote and what Warren did.