Morris Lewis and the reporting of his story

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve.

Yes, I didn't mean to suggest that digestion was the only method he used, he didn't need to know the exact time she ate as his estimate is also based on Livor mortis, Algor mortis and Rigor mortis. Though body temperature (Algor) would be next to useless in this case, as would the settling of blood (Livor).
The chemical changes which induce rigidity (Rigor) are affected by temperature so any conclusions on that score might be compromised if the night was cold but the room was warm.
This I believe is why he resorted to only mentioning digestion, there wasn't any other better options.

I did read somewhere that in the 19th century if the body of a victim was mutilated or otherwise rendered unable to retain heat, the procedure was to insert a thermometer in the brain, as it was a sealed unit and the most likely location to retain heat.
We have no mention of that, but perhaps this was done in Millers Court?

As food was identified in the abdomen I have no doubt the police would make every effort to find where she could have obtained a meal of fish and potatoes that night, and if they couldn't remember serving her, the time when they closed is important.

None of this may have reached the ears of the press of course.

Hi Jon

yes i am sure Bond did not mean to make it more confusing, but he did.

all you say is of course very true.

we really have nothing to go on, as Bond left no record of any temperatures being taken.

steve

[Wickerman]

G'day Jon, and therein lies both the biggest problem and greatest intrigue in this case, we don't know what the police actually knew.

Hi GUT.

It is common for some to believe that what the press wrote was all that was known, both by them and the police.

Not only do we not know what the police actually knew, the press at the time didn't either.

[Phil Carter]

Hello David,

Because reporters were crawling all over the place trying to get titbit of info. Nobody mentions Hutchinson. He isn't a "known client". He presents himself as a long term friend.

Phil

[GUT]

Hi GUT.

It is common for some to believe that what the press wrote was all that was known, both by them and the police.

Not only do we not know what the police actually knew, the press at the time didn't either.

No arguments from me Jon.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

yes i am sure Bond did not mean to make it more confusing, but he did.

all you say is of course very true.

we really have nothing to go on, as Bond left no record of any temperatures being taken.

steve

Hi Steve.

My trust in Dr. Bond's report and estimate of ToD is what I believe was the prime cause for the perception in the press of a "reduced importance" in Hutchinson's story.
On the one hand they had this witness who claims she was alive between 2:00-3:00am, but on the other a medical professional, and close friend of Anderson, who estimates she died before 2:00 am.
Which shifts at least a partial focus back to Blotchy.

So, regardless how accurate we believe Dr. Bond was, the police will prefer professional opinion over eyewitness testimony in many cases.
In this case I don't believe they thought it wise to discard either, but decided to pursue both possibilities, which was perceived by the press as a sudden downplaying of Hutchinson's story, but not an outright dismissal, as can be seen from enquiries that continued through November.

Secondly, although Dr. Bond's report makes no mention of Dr. Phillips, I'm inclined to believe that Bond is unlikely to provide opinions to the Assistant Commissioner that run contrary to the official post mortem report to be written by Dr. Phillips.

This is how the press worded their article on learning that Bond was making a separate report:

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, 10th Nov. 1888.

Which might suggest Dr. Phillips was in agreement with what Dr. Bond wrote.

[Elamarna]

In this case John digestion did stop at the time of death, Bond says that food was found in the abdominal cavity, and mentions the stomach in a separate context.
Food outside the stomach is not being digested, which leaves the time between the throat being cut and the abdomen being sliced open as the variable, until digestion ceased.
But yes in normal cases stomach acids do not evaporate on death, they continue to work, but slowly.
(This being the reason, in my view, why grape 'flesh' was not found in Stride's stomach)

Hi Jon,

yes any food in the cavity had obviously stopped being digested, however all that tells us is that in Bonds professional opinion, which appears to agree with all the sources on such matters, death occurred around 3-4 hours after the meal. it does not give us a reliable time of death.

regards

Steve

[Wickerman]

Nobody mentions Hutchinson. He isn't a "known client". He presents himself as a long term friend.

Phil

Hi Phil.

What Abberline wrote can be taken two ways:

"...and that he had known her about 3 years."

Which doesn't necessarily mean he saw her regularly over the past three years.
If you look back at Kelly's movements she appears to have been living at Breezers Hill three years before. Hutchinson may have known her three year ago.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve.

My trust in Dr. Bond's report and estimate of ToD is what I believe was the prime cause for the perception in the press of a "reduced importance" in Hutchinson's story.
On the one hand they had this witness who claims she was alive between 2:00-3:00am, but on the other a medical professional, and close friend of Anderson, who estimates she died before 2:00 am.
Which shifts at least a partial focus back to Blotchy.

So, regardless how accurate we believe Dr. Bond was, the police will prefer professional opinion over eyewitness testimony in many cases.
In this case I don't believe they thought it wise to discard either, but decided to pursue both possibilities, which was perceived by the press as a sudden downplaying of Hutchinson's story, but not an outright dismissal, as can be seen from enquiries that continued through November.

Secondly, although Dr. Bond's report makes no mention of Dr. Phillips, I'm inclined to believe that Bond is unlikely to provide opinions to the Assistant Commissioner that run contrary to the official post mortem report to be written by Dr. Phillips.

This is how the press worded their article on learning that Bond was making a separate report:

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, 10th Nov. 1888.

Which might suggest Dr. Phillips was in agreement with what Dr. Bond wrote.

Jon

all you say is true, however there may have been minor disagreements, we do not know.

At the end of the day I suppose it comes to how much you trust a time of death in these particular circumstances.
While the estimation of the doctors may well be in the right area, it is very possible they are a couple of hours out, instead of 1-2, say 2-3 or 3-4. I personally would not go for a change any greater than that.
As you said in your first post it was an educated guess by professionals.

steve

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

yes any food in the cavity had obviously stopped being digested, however all that tells us is that in Bonds professional opinion, which appears to agree with all the sources on such matters, death occurred around 3-4 hours after the meal. it does not give us a reliable time of death.

regards

Steve

Right Steve, I think everyone is in agreement, it is not a 'reliable' time of death.
The fact the police were also not given a time of death via the inquest suggests to me the doctors were not sufficiently convinced to make their estimate public.

[Elamarna]

Right Steve, I think everyone is in agreement, it is not a 'reliable' time of death.
The fact the police were also not given a time of death via the inquest suggests to me the doctors were not sufficiently convinced to make their estimate public.

Jon

yes most would agree with that I think. If ii have come across as challenging on this at all, it comes from several days posting on another thread where a 2am time of death is written in stone.

all the best

steve

[David Orsam]

Because reporters were crawling all over the place trying to get titbit of info. Nobody mentions Hutchinson. He isn't a "known client". He presents himself as a long term friend.

What on earth do you mean by "known client"? Despite the press "crawling all over the place" they didn't manage to find out about any clients? None that were reported anyway. As Jon's pointed out, Hutchinson was just someone who knew her. And as I've already said, there was no reason for anyone to mention Hutchinson immediately following Mary's death. As for longer term, after he came forward, why didn't these amazing reporters that you mention expose Hutchinson as someone who was NOT a friend of Mary?

He may or may not really have known her but your reasons for saying he didn't, in my opinion, don't stand up to scrutiny.

[Phil Carter]

What on earth do you mean by "known client"? Despite the press "crawling all over the place" they didn't manage to find out about any clients? None that were reported anyway. As Jon's pointed out, Hutchinson was just someone who knew her. And as I've already said, there was no reason for anyone to mention Hutchinson immediately following Mary's death. As for longer term, after he came forward, why didn't these amazing reporters that you mention expose Hutchinson as someone who was NOT a friend of Mary?

He may or may not really have known her but your reasons for saying he didn't, in my opinion, don't stand up to scrutiny.

No David.and neither do yours in my opinion. We disagree. Live with it.

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil.

What Abberline wrote can be taken two ways:

"...and that he had known her about 3 years."

Which doesn't necessarily mean he saw her regularly over the past three years.
If you look back at Kelly's movements she appears to have been living at Breezers Hill three years before. Hutchinson may have known her three year ago.

Hello Jon,

That's just supposition about Breezers Hill Sorry
Even if it can be taken two ways..I choose to take it the way I read it.


Phil

[David Orsam]

No David.and neither do yours in my opinion. We disagree. Live with it.

I can live with it very easily Phil.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon,

That's just supposition about Breezers Hill Sorry
Even if it can be taken two ways..I choose to take it the way I read it.


Phil

True Phil, but regardless how you choose to interpret Abberline's words, either possibility is also supposition.

"Known her about three years", says nothing for the time in between.