Morris Lewis and the reporting of his story

[Phil Carter]

that would at least be similar to what I said, but without knowing intent, it's tough to make it more. If I said it, it would mean that I began to know her 3 years ago, but because we worked in different places and weren't in same circles, I would only see her periodically...let's say every few months. Does that help?

Mike

So... known her for Three years... given (as I explained in the same vein to Jon in the same post) the proximity suggestions of Hutchinson... does that still weigh heavier on once in Three years in Your opinion?

Phil

[The Good Michael]

Hello GM,

So what would you call..

Ive known her on and off for three years?

that would at least be similar to what I said, but without knowing intent, it's tough to make it more. If I said it, it would mean that I began to know her 3 years ago, but because we worked in different places and weren't in same circles, I would only see her periodically...let's say every few months. Does that help?

Mike

[Phil Carter]

Jon,

It doesn't specifically, but if I were to say I've known someone for 5 years, my intention would be that in that span, we've seen and heard from each other. It doesn't say how often, however, but it implies more than just an initial meeting and then...nothing.

Mike

Hello GM,

So what would you call..

Ive known her on and off for three years?


Additionally Jon,


"Back from Romford" indicates his living status was in the East End. It also indicates it because he was trying to live just up at the end of Dorset Street.
It also indicates that because he knew the Place well enough..he carted a pc around With him trying to identify the bloke he said he saw. Now.. that tells me Hutchinson knew the area well. It also tells me he regularly ived in the near vicinity.. which would tell me that he saw Kelly more than once in Three years.

Also.. the conversation between them.. if he could lend her a sixpence... as she remembered his name quite automatically...didnt say "hello old ****..lovely t' see you after so long" or Words of that effect.. if is casual banter.. used With People one sees on a regular basis Id surmise.

Now all of this goes against this "once in Three years " stuff. Sorry Jon. It shows a weighty advance for thinking that Hutchinson knew Kelly well. Women change their appearance in Three years too.



Phil

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Here are my responses:



If Kelly met her killer shortly after 9am then I personally can't see any problem in those things being done in one and a half hours. A few of the things you mention are very quick indeed. Walking back to room from Britannia: 2 minutes? Starting fire: 1 minute? Being killed: 10 seconds? Escape: 1 minute?

After 10am makes it tight but we would, I think, need an expert opinion before ruling it out.



I don't think that what you are suggesting is actually possible.



Interesting that you say "screams". I'll come back to that.

It's tempting to rely on the cry of "murder" for the time of death but Prater said in her statement that she didn't take much notice of it because "I frequently hear such cries from the back of the lodging-house where the windows look into Millers Court". At the inquest she confirmed: "It was nothing uncommon to hear cries of murder so I took no notice".

That being so - her clear evidence - how can we possibly rely on such a thing for the time of death?

There are some odd things about the evidence relating to this anyway.

Prater, living almost above Kelly's room, said in her evidence: "the voice was in a faint voice". According to the Daily Telegraph report she said it was a "suppressed cry".

Sarah Lewis, however, in 2 Millers Court, said, according to the Telegraph: "I heard a female's voice shouting 'Murder' loudly".

Odd, no?

Then what about Prater's statement of 9 November. In that she said:

"I heard screams of murder about two or three times in a female voice".

But at the inquest, when asked if she heard the cry of murder a second time, she said "no" according to the Telegraph.

One single scream. So why did she originally say she had heard two or three screams? What do we make of that?

And then what about Mary Ann Cox who came into her room at 3am and then didn't go to sleep for the rest of the night. She said "I should have heard any cry of murder I heard nothing".

Are you seeing any discrepancies here?



But the doctor came to his conclusion based mainly on digestion of food in the stomach about which it was not medically possible for him to produce a reliable estimate of the time of death. Nor on rigor or rigidity for that matter. The police might as well have brought a psychic in for his or her opinion. Such an estimate would have been just as scientifically worthless as the doctor's.

Hi David
Thanks for the response.

If Kelly met her killer shortly after 9am then I personally can't see any problem in those things being done in one and a half hours. A few of the things you mention are very quick indeed. Walking back to room from Britannia: 2 minutes? Starting fire: 1 minute? Being killed: 10 seconds? Escape: 1 minute?

After 10am makes it tight but we would, I think, need an expert opinion before ruling it out.

agree. after 10am would make it extremely tight!

I don't think that what you are suggesting is actually possible.

You don't think police, detectives and/or doctors could tell by looking at the blood/staines dryness that a victim had been killed several hours before as opposed to minutes?

I think me or you could probably tell the difference. but maybe not-obviously just guessing here.

Are you seeing any discrepancies here?

Yes. Thank you for posting all that. but not very big ones. I see two women who heard basically the same thing with minor differences. admittedly I place a lot of credence and possibly a time for the start of attack on mary Kelly by this. even though "oh murder" was commonly heard in the area, I still see too much coincidence in the fact that a women, close by was actually murdered.

now all that being said, I used to place much more emphasis on it. but recently I saw a true crime show, where a murdered women by gun shot, was thought that TOD was in the middle of the night because two people heard what they though twere gun shots at that time.
Turns out the woman was murdered much later in the daylight morning and the supposed gunshots were unrelated. so its obviously possible.

[The Good Michael]

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.

Jon,

It doesn't specifically, but if I were to say I've known someone for 5 years, my intention would be that in that span, we've seen and heard from each other. It doesn't say how often, however, but it implies more than just an initial meeting and then...nothing.

Mike

[John G]

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

Hello Steve,

But the 3-4 hours is not necessarily accarate. For instance, 200g of boiled fish will take roughly 2-3 hours to digest. Moreover, in Kelly's case the food hadn't completely digested.

Moreover, as I've noted, there is a lack of longitudinal studies on this subject, so any estimates should be treated with caution.

[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.

[David Orsam]

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

I can live with it very easily 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

[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

[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.

[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

[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]

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]

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.