Hutchinsons statement....

[David Orsam]

You left out the bit where he concludes, "it is, therefore, pretty certain that the woman must have been dead about 12 hours..."

Yes "about 12 hours" not "exactly 12 hours".

From 3:00am to 2:00pm (when Bond says he visited Dorset Street) is 11 hours. That's "about 12 hours" is it not?

[Wickerman]

Lets just have the whole paragraph.

"Rigor mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination. From this it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death as the period varies from 6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in. The body was comparatively cold at 2 o'clock and the remains of a recently taken meal were found in the stomach and scattered about over the intestines. It is, therefore, pretty certain that the woman must have been dead about 12 hours 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."

[Wickerman]

Yes "about 12 hours" not "exactly 12 hours".

From 3:00am to 2:00pm (when Bond says he visited Dorset Street) is 11 hours. That's "about 12 hours" is it not?

You were referring to rigor being the clue to her time of death, but Bond also looked at digestion, which changed the estimation.

[David Orsam]

You were referring to rigor being the clue to her time of death, but Bond also looked at digestion, which changed the estimation.

Yes, so the Coroner must have been very interested in when Mary took her last meal?

Funnily enough I don't see him asking anyone about it.

[Wickerman]

Yes, so the Coroner must have been very interested in when Mary took her last meal?

Funnily enough I don't see him asking anyone about it.

Perhaps, another indication he knew more than the usual coroner would.
It's only reasonable to assume that information was known as it formed part of the evidence Dr. Bond would use to arrive at the conclusion he did.

[Varqm]

Excuse me for asking, but is this where I ask why the police did not interview all the residents of Bucks Row (if they were so keen on doing the basics), and we can start going round in circles again?

Clearly (!), from time to time, the police missed out on "the basics". And you may have noted how Jon (Wickerman) suggested that the police DID the basics - but the coroner refrained from using Kennedy at the inquest, since he did not want things repeated.

The two things we can be sure about are easily pinpointed:

1. We are not going to agree about this, and...

2. ... that is because the matter is not a clear one.

Repeated? No, in any case Kennedy would have had a different perspective unless they had the same pair of eyes.
I do not know about Bucks Row but I was never interested in the Lechmere theory one bit/moment, except we do not know what Lechmere was doing before Paul saw him.
Basics? In Miller's Court yes, every little bit of information from anybody who was present at that court in the early morning, did somebody heard footsteps or a door closing,conversations etc.,at what time,it would have changed their sense/reconstruction of what happened.

[harry]

Very hardy people in those times.About 3AM that morning it was raining heavy,so Cox says,the temperature was near freezing point,yet at least 5 people were either stood or walking in that small area from Millers Court to the Britannia.According to witnesses. And Hutchinson,poor bugger,chose to walk away,when just a few yards across the street,was shelter at Millers Court.

[Fisherman]

Such as?

There´s another one ...

[Fisherman]

Repeated? No, in any case Kennedy would have had a different perspective unless they had the same pair of eyes.
I do not know about Bucks Row but I was never interested in the Lechmere theory one bit/moment, except we do not know what Lechmere was doing before Paul saw him.
Basics? In Miller's Court yes, every little bit of information from anybody who was present at that court in the early morning, did somebody heard footsteps or a door closing,conversations etc.,at what time,it would have changed their sense/reconstruction of what happened.

Yes, Kennedy would have had a different perspective. And so would a number of other people who were not summoned to the inquest, although they had information to offer that was never heard.

It´s all good and well that you speak for a completer process, but what we are discussing out here is the reality, and in that reality, the coroner was somewhat sparse about these matters - as is well known.

[Fisherman]

Very hardy people in those times.About 3AM that morning it was raining heavy,so Cox says,the temperature was near freezing point,yet at least 5 people were either stood or walking in that small area from Millers Court to the Britannia.According to witnesses. And Hutchinson,poor bugger,chose to walk away,when just a few yards across the street,was shelter at Millers Court.

He did not even have to cross the street to reach the court, Harry - he stood at it´s entrance.

[The Good Michael]

Very hardy people in those times.About 3AM that morning it was raining heavy,so Cox says,the temperature was near freezing point,yet at least 5 people were either stood or walking in that small area from Millers Court to the Britannia.According to witnesses. And Hutchinson,poor bugger,chose to walk away,when just a few yards across the street,was shelter at Millers Court.

Drunkards seeking booze are always hardy.

Mike

[harry]

Already there? Wonder Cox or Kennedy didn't bump into him.

[Fisherman]

Already there? Wonder Cox or Kennedy didn't bump into him.

Cox? Really?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;417769]

what we are discussing out here is the reality, and in that reality, the coroner was somewhat sparse about these matters - as is well known.

No, you are not discussing "reality", you are discussing old sources left to us from the past.

The sources are pieces of reality from the past, but the sources do not at all always provide you with the whole reality or even pieces of reality of the past.

The past is gone.

Reality is gone.

What is left to us are the sources.

Sources are pieces from reality constructed by the court, by journalists, by editors.

They are not "reality". Do remember this.

And this does not mean that the sources are useless or hopeless.

It means that you must use historical methods when you examine them.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Pierre;417780]

No, you are not discussing "reality", you are discussing old sources left to us from the past.

The sources are pieces of reality from the past, but the sources do not at all always provide you with the whole reality or even pieces of reality of the past.

The past is gone.

Reality is gone.
[/B]

I have a pretty good idea about what is really gone here...