Double throat cuts

[Wickerman]

Well it's funny but when I asked you to set out your sources originally you only produced the Times (and the same story in the Star). You've obviously found a new story but that clearly wasn't what you were basing your original conclusion on.

Problem is there are also reports which say something different.

And given that both reports - the one in the Western Mail and the one in the Times - might have come from the same source, all you are potentially doing is corroborating a mistake with the same mistake. It's not good enough Jon.

"Might"?
"potentially"?
There are no shortage of press reports on this, some carry errors. There is no official report to suggest any other sequence of events.
If your whole purpose in chasing me across threads is because you think I called these stories 'facts' you are most certainly wasting your time & mine too.

[David Orsam]

See, you are putting words in my mouth now.

At no point have I ever referred to this subject as an established fact. I've never used the word 'fact', that is your assumption.
We've been over this before.
I posted press quotes, you saw them.
I get the impression you just enjoy wasting people's time going round and round in circles.

No, you are wrong. I haven't put any words into your mouth. I said "You continually treat it as established fact." And that is exactly what you keep doing.

In the other thread you said:

"Dr. Phillips did make a preliminary examination on entering the room at 1:30, after which the photographer appears to have been permitted to enter, prior to the post-mortem beginning at 2:00 pm."

That is treating it as an established fact. No source is mentioned. There is no form of qualification. I had to extract the source of this from you, being a newspaper. You don't know for certain what Dr Phillips did on entering the room.

Then again in this thread:

"After a cursory (preliminary?) examination he determined she had died from a cut to the throat. That is all we know from Phillips's own mouth, isn't it?"

Ironically, you question "preliminary" - which is fine - but not "cursory" which you suggest came from Phillips's own mouth. He never said it though!

[David Orsam]

Location has nothing to do with it for goodness sake's man, both reports describe two separate functions. The first an overview, the second the examination.
Phillips isn't going to examine McKenze on the sidewalk. Of course the location changed, besides Phillips then conducted an autopsy for the inquest.

At Millers court the doctors had to be sure all her parts were found before they packed her off to the mortuary. The location stayed the same, its a post-mortem, but not an autopsy.

I'm going to ignore your quirky distinction here between "post-mortem" and "autopsy" on the basis that the relevant doctors didn't do it in November 1888 and it's just confusing matters.

You simply haven't met the point I am challenging you with. You say "Of course the location changed". I agree. The normal course is for an examination to be made in situ at the crime scene (one could call it a "preliminary examination") and then a proper post-mortem (or autopsy - I regard the terms as interchangeable) takes place in a mortuary.

So what I am asking you, Jon, is why didn't exactly the same thing happen with the Mary Kelly murder?

And before you answer, I'm challenging the assumption that the examination that took place in the room was a proper post-mortem examination as reported in the press. How do we know that the press got it right?

[David Orsam]

That is when you are quoting from the same paragraph, not from the same page.

No, that's not correct Jon. You wrapped up the entire quote within one set of quotation marks, suggesting no interruption in the text. Had I not had the Western Mail report, and not decided to check it, I would have been misled into thinking it was two consecutive paragraphs. Had you put in the dots I would have known there was something you hadn't quoted. Yet bang in the middle is the statement about Sir Charles arriving at Miller's Court, an error undermining the accuracy of the entire report.

[David Orsam]

There is no official report to suggest any other sequence of events.

But that's twisted logic. Some newspapers suggest there was only one examination carried out in the room and there is no official report to suggest any other sequence of events than THAT either.

You can't possibly rely on the absence of supporting evidence for a newspaper story as an actual reason to say that the newspaper story is correct!! That way madness lies.

[David Orsam]

If your whole purpose in chasing me across threads is because you think I called these stories 'facts' you are most certainly wasting your time & mine too.

You flatter yourself if you think I am chasing you across threads. What happened is that I noticed you saying this:

"After a cursory (preliminary?) examination he determined she had died from a cut to the throat. That is all we know from Phillips's own mouth, isn't it?"

If there is one thing certain in this case, it's that the word "cursory" did not emanate from Dr Phillips' own mouth!

[David Orsam]

It's in the Irish Times too, and in other outlets. Didn't you tell me before in was in the Chronicle?
Why does that matter?

I didn't have time to dig out this quote from you last night (from the Mary Kelly thread #164):

"Yes, but keep in mind this is reported in the Irish Times, not, so far as I can see in the local London papers. The American press also got a number of detail wrong, so I mostly give preference to the London papers first. The only time I look further afield, but still in English press, is when articles are published that do not appear in the London press."

That's why I was surprised to see you quoting from the Western Mail if you knew it was in the (London) Daily Chronicle.

[David Orsam]

It's in the Irish Times too, and in other outlets. Didn't you tell me before in was in the Chronicle?
Why does that matter?

I didn't have time to dig out this quote from you last night (from the Mary Kelly thread #164):

"Yes, but keep in mind this is reported in the Irish Times, not, so far as I can see in the local London papers. The American press also got a number of detail wrong, so I mostly give preference to the London papers first. The only time I look further afield, but still in English press, is when articles are published that do not appear in the London press."

That's why I was surprised to see you quoting from the Western Mail if you knew it was in the (London) Daily Chronicle.

[Wickerman]

No, you are wrong. I haven't put any words into your mouth. I said "You continually treat it as established fact." And that is exactly what you keep doing.

In the other thread you said:

"Dr. Phillips did make a preliminary examination on entering the room at 1:30, after which the photographer appears to have been permitted to enter, prior to the post-mortem beginning at 2:00 pm."

That is treating it as an established fact. No source is mentioned. There is no form of qualification. I had to extract the source of this from you, being a newspaper. You don't know for certain what Dr Phillips did on entering the room.

Then again in this thread:

"After a cursory (preliminary?) examination he determined she had died from a cut to the throat. That is all we know from Phillips's own mouth, isn't it?"

Ironically, you question "preliminary" - which is fine - but not "cursory" which you suggest came from Phillips's own mouth. He never said it though!

Every single source requires a qualification, that is obvious.

No-one, not here nor anywhere else, is going to prefix every statement they make with a "according to", or "it was suggested by".

Even official sources cannot be relied upon to be factual. Medical evidence is not to be regarded as factual. Sworn testimony cannot be deemed to be factual.
So, everything we write is dependent upon the various sources we use.

The pedantic poster might try to pursue an argument because a qualifier was not used, but the well informed poster already knows the source is from the press. So why do they ask rhetorical questions?
Because they are more intent on arguing than debating.
Anyone come to mind???

- It is through an official source that we are informed Schwartz appeared at the inquest, it is thanks to the press that we know this did not happen.
- It is medical evidence that suggests Chapman was killed hours earlier, but it is through the press that we find evidence to the contrary.

No single source is more reliable than another, be it official, professional or sworn. All sources are subject to the same caveat so don't expect every comment made on the forum to be accompanied by a qualifier.

If you have a concern, just ask 'what is the source for that?'
Why do you think footnotes are used by authors?, because tying up every statement with a qualifier is time consuming and a waste of space.
The reader has to make an extra effort to find the source for that claim - so just maybe you could ask and you just might save hundreds of aimless posts by being up front with what you are querying.
For the most part in these exchanges I had no clue what the point was of your questions.

[Wickerman]

That's why I was surprised to see you quoting from the Western Mail if you knew it was in the (London) Daily Chronicle.

The Daily Chronicle is not available on BNA, or here in the Press Reports.
See how easy it is to get a simple answer.

[David Orsam]

The Daily Chronicle is not available on BNA, or here in the Press Reports.
See how easy it is to get a simple answer.

Okay, I hadn't realised that meant it was impossible to access.

[Wickerman]

I'm going to ignore your quirky distinction here between "post-mortem" and "autopsy" on the basis that the relevant doctors didn't do it in November 1888 and it's just confusing matters.

Any examination of a dead body is a post-mortem.
Some post-mortems are official (for an inquest) and must follow strict guidelines, while others are rudimentary, cursory, preliminary, and are not required to be formal. This is why the press refer to the Saturday morning 'official' post-mortem as "in chief".
Whereas I use "autopsy", just my preference.

You simply haven't met the point I am challenging you with. You say "Of course the location changed". I agree. The normal course is for an examination to be made in situ at the crime scene (one could call it a "preliminary examination") and then a proper post-mortem (or autopsy - I regard the terms as interchangeable) takes place in a mortuary.

What was normal about Millers Court?

So what I am asking you, Jon, is why didn't exactly the same thing happen with the Mary Kelly murder?

And before you answer, I'm challenging the assumption that the examination that took place in the room was a proper post-mortem examination as reported in the press. How do we know that the press got it right?

Most dead bodies do not need to be put back together before they are moved to the mortuary. That process seemed to involve several medical professionals who no doubt were interested in the how & why these organs were removed.

Why can't you think that through yourself?

[Abby Normal]

Any examination of a dead body is a post-mortem.
Some post-mortems are official (for an inquest) and must follow strict guidelines, while others are rudimentary, cursory, preliminary, and are not required to be formal. This is why the press refer to the Saturday morning 'official' post-mortem as "in chief".
Whereas I use "autopsy", just my preference.



What was normal about Millers Court?



Most dead bodies do not need to be put back together before they are moved to the mortuary. That process seemed to involve several medical professionals who no doubt were interested in the how & why these organs were removed.

Why can't you think that through yourself?

hi Wickerman
how does the autopsy taking place in Millers court help your well dressed man theory?

[David Orsam]

Every single source requires a qualification, that is obvious.

No-one, not here nor anywhere else, is going to prefix every statement they make with a "according to", or "it was suggested by".

Even official sources cannot be relied upon to be factual. Medical evidence is not to be regarded as factual. Sworn testimony cannot be deemed to be factual.
So, everything we write is dependent upon the various sources we use.

The pedantic poster might try to pursue an argument because a qualifier was not used, but the well informed poster already knows the source is from the press. So why do they ask rhetorical questions?
Because they are more intent on arguing than debating.
Anyone come to mind???

- It is through an official source that we are informed Schwartz appeared at the inquest, it is thanks to the press that we know this did not happen.
- It is medical evidence that suggests Chapman was killed hours earlier, but it is through the press that we find evidence to the contrary.

No single source is more reliable than another, be it official, professional or sworn. All sources are subject to the same caveat so don't expect every comment made on the forum to be accompanied by a qualifier.

If you have a concern, just ask 'what is the source for that?'
Why do you think footnotes are used by authors?, because tying up every statement with a qualifier is time consuming and a waste of space.
The reader has to make an extra effort to find the source for that claim - so just maybe you could ask and you just might save hundreds of aimless posts by being up front with what you are querying.
For the most part in these exchanges I had no clue what the point was of your questions.

Well at least you now seem to understand what I have been saying the whole time.

You can't just swipe it away with your hand and say "time consuming". You do need to qualify your statements with "I think" or "I believe" or "according to" or whatever. Anything else is poor form. Of course, there are footnotes in books. But not in posts.

It can be very intimidating when someone makes unqualified statements as if they were established facts on the boards. If you think I was aware of the source of your statement about Phillips and the preliminary examination you are wrong. I don't have every fact at my fingertips. I rely on posters not to make overblown statements.

Your post about Phillips in the Kelly thread was in response to me saying (to another poster) that Phillips was most likely to have formed an estimate about time of death in the 2pm examination. I posted this to Simon Wood:

"I would also add that if you are going to calculate from the time of the examination then that probably began at 2pm. Phillips said he entered the room at 1.30pm but also refers to his 'subsequent examination' - it is Bond who says his own examination commenced at 2pm and presumably he started at the same time as Phillips."

In response, in a post addressed to me, you said this:

"Dr. Phillips did make a preliminary examination on entering the room at 1:30, after which the photographer appears to have been permitted to enter, prior to the post-mortem beginning at 2:00 pm."

So your point about people "more intent on arguing than debating" is ill conceived. You were the one arguing, unnecessarily. And I have been attempting to debate the whole time with you in this thread about the Bond report but you haven't really engaged.

Finally, and I hope this really is final, I note that in on 15 January 2016, on JTR Forums, after referring to the "legally bound autopsy" conducted on the Saturday morning, you posted this:

"However, there were two previous examinations, if we can trust the press."

I don't know how "if we can trust the press" has, in 17 months, become "we CAN trust the press". You got it right in JTR Forums so why not get in right in here?

[David Orsam]

Any examination of a dead body is a post-mortem.
Some post-mortems are official (for an inquest) and must follow strict guidelines, while others are rudimentary, cursory, preliminary, and are not required to be formal. This is why the press refer to the Saturday morning 'official' post-mortem as "in chief".
Whereas I use "autopsy", just my preference.

But the press used various different terms to describe the examinations.

I think you are just playing semantics now. We agreed some time ago that a preliminary examination could be a visual one. You are not telling me that if Dr Phillips had spent a couple of minutes looking at the Kelly's body in the room before the photographs were taken that would have meant he had carried out a post-mortem are you?

That's just silly. I know what the words 'post-mortem' mean but A post-mortem is different from ANY examination.