Morris Lewis and the reporting of his story

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[David Orsam]

Can't help pointing out that Mary Jane was a prostitute so she must have had male clients. Which means she knew a number of men. How many of them were mentioned by name at the inquest, or to police or reporters?

[David Orsam]

Yet.. not one other person mentions Hutchinson by name nor knowledge of him.

How do we actually know that no other person had knowledge of Hutchinson?

And why should any person speaking to the police or the coroner in the period of 9-12 November have mentioned him?

[packers stem]

Hello all,

What stands out for me re Lewis et al is the notion that nobody knew the victim in terms of whom they saw or mistakenly saw.
It reminds me of the remarkable (lmho) situation that we have a so called prime witness in Hutchinson..who claimed to have known this victim over a period of years. Yet.. not one other person mentions Hutchinson by name nor knowledge of him.
Firstly, Mary must have mentioned him to various others over the years..and secondly, the most obvious is that women talk to each other about men. Especially over a few drinks in pubs. The fellow called Hutchinson would have been known..in the very least by name, if not sight.
But did this Hutchinson..who knew Mary so well..attend the funeral?

Just pondering.



Phil

Hi Phil

Another who could have,should have,been taken to view the body then?
I agree totally with what you say

[Wickerman]

Hi Steve,

And, as I've posted before, even for today's forensic pathologists digestion is not an accurate means for determining time of death because they are too many variables. Moreover, Dr Bond fell into error when he said digestion stopped at the time of death: "Digestion itself does not cease at death but progresses after death due to enzyme activity; the state of digestion is therefore only of little value in estimating the time." ( Payne- James et al, 2003). See:https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...estion&f=false

And, for what it's worth, a small meal takes roughly between 1-3 hours to digest (200g of boiled fish about 2-3 hours), as demonstrated in the reference above.

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)

[GUT]

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.

And when they knew it.

[GUT]

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

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.

[Wickerman]

Dear Wickerman,

Surely that cannot be entirely accurate?

in his Statement Bond Says

" and the partly digested food would indicate: that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken, so one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder."

I see no way you can extrapolated 3 or 4 hours before death to get a time of death at: "one or two o'clock in the morning" ; Unless you have a time for that meal.

Does this not indicate that he is saying that the level of digestion basically stopped or dramatically slowed at death?

indeed given that the examination was carried out at 2pm, if digestion continued there would be virtually nothing left to examine.

It would seem he is basing his educated guess for TOD on the temperature of the body, which he does not record that he took.

regards

Steve

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.

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

What stands out for me re Lewis et al is the notion that nobody knew the victim in terms of whom they saw or mistakenly saw.
It reminds me of the remarkable (lmho) situation that we have a so called prime witness in Hutchinson..who claimed to have known this victim over a period of years. Yet.. not one other person mentions Hutchinson by name nor knowledge of him.
Firstly, Mary must have mentioned him to various others over the years..and secondly, the most obvious is that women talk to each other about men. Especially over a few drinks in pubs. The fellow called Hutchinson would have been known..in the very least by name, if not sight.
But did this Hutchinson..who knew Mary so well..attend the funeral?

Just pondering.



Phil

[John G]

John G,

I personally see JTR as very much an opportunist who didn't plan a great deal and certainly wasn't some criminal mastermind. He was fortunate in my opinion in so much as he didn't get caught red-handed.

But, I think he went out hunting when it was dark for obvious reasons, and the other murders support this view.

If you mean he may have been in the pub at 9 in the morning with no more than having a beer in mind, and fortune called and he took advantage; I doubt it.

My hunch is that Kelly was dead long before the sun rose, just as the other victims were.

Hi Fleetwood Mac,

You may very well be right. However, I do think it's possible that he could have killed during daylight hours, i.e. if the opportunity presented itself and the urge to kill overwhelmed him . After all, the evidence suggests he didn't have a great deal of self restraint, i e. because of the risks he took.

That said, instinctively I feel that Kelly probably was killed in the early hours of the morning-before the sun rose-so we're in agreement there. However, I cannot rule out the possibility that she was killed later, even after 9:00am, as the medical evidence doesn't rule this out and the witness statements are conflicting.