The broken window

[Jon Guy]

I beg your pardon?
That's extremely rude and totally out of order. This thread hasn't dropped to the level of personal insult until now. I suggest it doesn't need to start either.
.

Well, what was that rubbish about open and closed minds !!

[David Orsam]

Hi All,

Illustrated Police News, 17th November 1888—

Another account says that she had a little boy, aged about six or seven years, living with her, and latterly she had been in narrow straits, so much so that she is reported to have stated to a companion that she would make away with herself, as she could not bear to see her boy starving . . . Soon after they [Kelly and the companion] parted a man who is described as respectably dressed came up and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly, and offered her some money. The man then acompanied the woman home to her lodgings, and the little boy was removed from the room and taken to a neighbour's house. Nothing more was seen of the woman until Friday morning, when, it is stated, the little boy was sent back into the house, and subsequently dispatched on an errand by the man who was in the house with his mother.

You do know, don't you, Simon that this entire story appeared some 7 days earlier, almost word for word identical, in the Times on 10 November?

We have already discussed the meaning of the words 'Another account' which seemed to confuse you earlier in this thread but which clearly indicate that the source of the story was someone other than Barnett.

Furthermore, the Times of 10 November added a caveat following the last sentence saying 'There is no direct confirmation of this statement'. The same story also appeared in the London Daily News of 10 November which was also caveated as follows: 'Confirmation of this statement is, it is true, difficult to obtain'.

[David Orsam]

In short, Simon, the story of the little boy living with Kelly comes from an unsourced, unconfirmed, report which was, in any event, corrected in the Globe on 10 November - which said that the boy (to the extent that he existed) was the son of a woman who sometimes stayed with Kelly (but not necessarily at the time of the murder) - and, as Wickerman's research has indicated, may not have had anything to do with Kelly at all. Given that nothing about a boy was mentioned in evidence at the inquest there must be some considerable doubt as to the veracity of these unsourced, unconfirmed, newspaper stories.

Your own belief that Dr Gabe's arrival at Miller's Court had something to do with this little boy – on the basis of a false understanding that Barnett had told a Star reporter that the boy was living with Kelly – may require some revision.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Yes, I did know the story was in The Times, 10th November.

At one time or another throughout the afternoon of 9th November there were five other medical men in Millers Court, each more than capable of assessing the victim's wounds.

What need did the victim have for Dr. Gabe's attention?

That there was no mention in the evidence of a boy does not surprise me in the least, given that this rushed and shoddy inquest did not even make an attempt to establish the victim's time of death, one of its four fundamental requirements—identity of deceased, place of death, time of death and manner of death.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

At one time or another throughout the afternoon of 9th November there were five other medical men in Millers Court, each more than capable of assessing the victim's wounds.

Why were five medical men there Simon?

And if five why not six?

[David Orsam]

What need did the victim have for Dr. Gabe's attention?

I raised this earlier in the thread.

If Dr Gabe were there to look after a little boy, why did he give his attention to a dead woman?

[curious4]

Doctors are only human. Perhaps he was there out of pure curiosity. "Let me through, I'm a doctor!"

C4

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Doctor Phillips and his assistant. Doctor Bond and his assistant, and a guest appearance of Doctor Frederick Gordon Brown from the Mitre Square murder.

We do not know that Gabe gave his professional attention to the victim; only that he saw the victim in situ. Hence his comments to the press.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Doctor Phillips and his assistant. Doctor Bond and his assistant, and a guest appearance of Doctor Frederick Gordon Brown from the Mitre Square murder.

I see, so you when you mentioned there were 'five other medical men each more than capable of assessing the victim's wounds' you really meant two doctors with their assistants and one 'guest appearance'. I really call that three and you didn't bat an eyelid previously that there were five so no problem in there having been four there, I think.

[David Orsam]

We do not know that Gabe gave his professional attention to the victim; only that he saw the victim in situ. Hence his comments to the press.

You were the one who used the word "attention" Simon.

You asked:

"If Dr Gabe were there to look after a little boy, why did he give his attention to a dead woman?".

I was following your lead. And I say precisely, why did he give his attention to a dead woman, or, if you now prefer, go and see the victim in situ, if his reason for being there was to give his professional attention to a little boy?

I await your response.

[Phil Carter]

I see, so you when you mentioned there were 'five other medical men each more than capable of assessing the victim's wounds' you really meant two doctors with their assistants and one 'guest appearance'. I really call that three and you didn't bat an eyelid previously that there were five so no problem in there having been four there, I think.

David,

I may be in err here but I recall a total of 7 doctors present.


Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

I asked what need the victim had for Dr. Gabe's attention.

You asked why he gave his attention to the dead woman, as if it were an ascertained fact.

I replied that we do not know if the victim received Gabe's professional attention.

You're the one getting a wedgie.

I'm off out for a while. It might give you a chance to gather your thoughts.

Regards,

Simon

[Pierre]

But, it`s answers we`re after, not questions.
Yes, Phil Carter`s childlike propensity to question everything is very sweet and endearing but it only wastes time when valuable research could be done.

But yes, that is the way of it.

"Valuable research"?

Pierre

[David Orsam]

David,

I may be in err here but I recall a total of 7 doctors present.

Well I think it's Simon you need to address your post to Phil because he has told me there were 4 doctors plus two assistants present. If he's got it wrong you might want to let him know who the seventh medical man was.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

I asked what need the victim had for Dr. Gabe's attention.

You asked why he gave his attention to the dead woman, as if it were an ascertained fact.

I replied that we do not know if the victim received Gabe's professional attention.

You're the one getting a wedgie.

I'm off out for a while. It might give you a chance to gather your thoughts.

I don't need to gather my thoughts Simon. I asked you in my previous post why Dr Gabe went to see the victim in situ, and you have simply avoided answering the question.