Was Mary Kelly killed in daylight hours.?

[Wickerman]

That's an extraordinary statement Jon. Because the press got one thing right we shouldn't question anything else they say about the events of that day?

The press were able to identify a photographer, and describe when he arrived and when he left, yet you think they were wrong when they described two separate examinations conducted by the doctors in that room, while the photographer waited outside.

I thought we had agreed that the press get some things right and some things wrong.

Yes, and the reason we know they do get things wrong is, we have contrary evidence on that specific point.
In this case you have no evidence of only one examination, and no evidence the photographer entered before anything was moved.
Your argument is, as you admitted, based purely on what 'you' think is common sense.
Yet, the common sense you refer to is only true today because we have forensics to apply to every type of evidence. Abberline was not troubled by such technicalities in 1888.
The only forensic aids available were those two bloodhounds, that were never used, plus the ability to identify boot prints.
Now, I ask again, what harm would moving an arm, or a chair have done to the investigation?

The point I have been repeatedly making to you is that the press did not have first hand knowledge of what happened inside the room.

You don't know that.
The culture among the City police, of whom Dr Brown was attached was totally different. The press had a good rapport with anyone connected to the City authorities, not so with the Met. or Scotland Yard. Plus, the photographer may not have been sworn to secrecy over what he saw, or what he overheard.
You're guessing.

That is why we can question it. Especially as, according to you - if I understand you correctly - the transmission of this information was via one of the residents to the press. If that's not right, tell me how the press knew?

I don't recall mentioning a resident as a source for the examinations.

As I have been saying since the start, Dr Phillips makes no reference to a preliminary examination in his testimony. He said he arrived at 1.30pm and made a 'subsequent examination". I've commented that it would have been sensible to let the photographer to take his snaps before commencing an examination. I also think that Phillips would have waited until Dr Bond was ready to commence the examination before starting on it. I think there would have been a single post-mortem examination. I don't even know what you mean by 'preliminary examination.'

Yes David, and Phillips described his "subsequent examination":

"...and from my subsequent examination I am sure the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death from that side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition, the large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the paliasse, pillow, sheet, at that top corner nearest the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery which was the immediate cause of her death was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head & neck in the top right hand corner."

He makes no mention of conducting a post-mortem, or the presence of any of his peers, or the movement of organs, furniture, limbs, etc.
Nothing described above would pass for a description of a post-mortem.
Everything he described was visual.

[Abby Normal]

can anyone please explain what the revalance of this current debate is about? what does it matter if there was a preliminary/one/two/examinations?

am I missing something? whats the point?

sorry, in advance-I can be a little obtuse sometimes.

[Michael W Richards]

I used that quote David because that's what I believe Jon is interpreting as an "examination", the quote however clearly uses the term to identify what was in effect a visual inspection, as you said.

Phillips simply surveyed the scene before his "examination" which was conducted with Bond...that's the crux. I was being supportive of your position. There was not 2 pm's or anything like that.

[David Orsam]

I can't imagine anyone not understanding what a preliminary examination refers to when it precedes a post-mortem.
As there are no fixed requirements for a preliminary examination, then each doctor will address the evidence at the scene as he sees fit.

So he could have just visually observed the scene and not touched anything?

[David Orsam]

You are imposing today's understanding on a century old murder case

Of course I'm not Jon. Did you not read the extract from the Daily Telegraph of 10 November 1888 that I posted a little earlier?

"Before anything was disturbed a photograph was taken of the interior of the room."

The benefits of taking a photograph before anything was disturbed were as obvious to the Daily Telegraph reporter as they would have been to the police and the doctors in 1888.

Do you really and seriously need me to explain to you why it was better to take a photograph of the crime scene before anything was disturbed?

[Wickerman]

Why would I think you would know? Seriously?

Because you used the expression! They are your words!!! Are you in the habit of posting expressions and phrases on the board that you don’t understand then?

I can't imagine anyone not understanding what a preliminary examination refers to when it precedes a post-mortem.
As there are no fixed requirements for a preliminary examination, then each doctor will address the evidence at the scene as he sees fit.

[Wickerman]

I haven't said a word about forensics. I said it would have been common sense to have the scene photographed exactly as it was found by the police when they entered the room. As I think I also mentioned, common sense existed in 1888.

David, you are hiding behind a subjective term (common sense). What makes sense to one person is not necessarily sensible to another.

I suspect you are at a loss to describe exactly how the case would benefit from recording the original position of every item in the room, before anything is touched. Abberline is reported to have made an inventory of the contents already on that day. A much better record than a poor quality (the lighting was bad) photograph.
You are imposing today's understanding on a century old murder case, and as a result you cannot provide an answer.

It appears Michael has the same problem.

[David Orsam]

When Phillips looked into the window he determined there was no immediate need to enter the room until all officials were present. He says this during the Inquest,.... " I remained until about 1.30p.m., when the door was broken open by McCarthy, under the direction of Superintendent Arnold. On the door being opened it knocked against a table which was close to the left-hand side of the bedstead, and the bedstead was close against the wooden partition. The mutilated remains of a woman were lying two- thirds over, towards the edge of the bedstead, nearest the door. Deceased had only an under- linen garment upon her, and by subsequent examination I am sure the body had been removed, after the injury which caused death, from that side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition previously mentioned. The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliasse, pillow, and sheet at the top corner of the bedstead nearest to the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery, which was the immediate cause of death, was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head and neck in the top right-hand corner."

I underlined his use of the word examination, which was his examining the body, its location on the bed, the condition of the bedding..etc.

I believe that's what Jon refers to, although he would likely argue the examination was of the corpse, not the entire death scene and disposition of the deceased.

When has Jon been referring to this? It's me that's been referring to Phillips' use of the expression 'subsequent examination' throughout this discussion.

If Jon is going to argue that what he refers to as Phillips' 'preliminary examination' was of the corpse, not of the entire death scene and disposition of the deceased, then it's about time he got round to it. I asked him what he meant by 'preliminary examination' about 100 posts ago and he still hasn't answered! Perhaps he is on Google looking it up as I type.

[Michael W Richards]

When Phillips looked into the window he determined there was no immediate need to enter the room until all officials were present. He says this during the Inquest,.... " I remained until about 1.30p.m., when the door was broken open by McCarthy, under the direction of Superintendent Arnold. On the door being opened it knocked against a table which was close to the left-hand side of the bedstead, and the bedstead was close against the wooden partition. The mutilated remains of a woman were lying two- thirds over, towards the edge of the bedstead, nearest the door. Deceased had only an under- linen garment upon her, and by subsequent examination I am sure the body had been removed, after the injury which caused death, from that side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition previously mentioned. The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliasse, pillow, and sheet at the top corner of the bedstead nearest to the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery, which was the immediate cause of death, was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head and neck in the top right-hand corner."

I underlined his use of the word examination, which was his examining the body, its location on the bed, the condition of the bedding..etc.

I believe that's what Jon refers to, although he would likely argue the examination was of the corpse, not the entire death scene and disposition of the deceased.

[David Orsam]

On the other side of the coin:

Daily Telegraph of 10 Nov

"Before anything was disturbed a photograph was taken of the interior of the room."

Daily Chronicle 10 Nov [Also Morning Post of same day]:

"Previous to the post-mortem examination a photographer, who was brought on the scene after some considerable difficulty and delay, was set to work in the court and house with a view to obtaining permanent evidence as to the state of the room, the condition of the body, and other points…"

Manchester Weekly Times of 10 Nov

"A photographer was sent for, but did not arrive till half-past one. He has taken several photographs of the remains."

(Not too badly delayed if he arrived at 1.30pm)

And the Times, of course, says that the photographs were taken (through the window) before the door was even opened!

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

A quick unscientific tally.

Four London newspapers state that the examination began before the photographer arrived.

Two Canadian and one American newspaper [same agency story], and the Irish Times, say that the photographer arrived before the examination began.

The Irish Times also tells us that the photographer was brought on the scene only after considerable difficulty and delay; also that the post mortem lasted two hours and finished at a quarter to four.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

To the best of my knowledge we have no information to contest what we read about the two examinations. Phillips never said he conducted a post-mortem, and Bond never mentioned an earlier observation/examination.

This is extraordinary. Are you saying that Dr Phillips, the divisional surgeon, did not conduct a post-mortem examination? Yet, you cited the Times newspaper as saying "Dr Phillips, on his arrival, carefully examined the body of the dead woman, and later on made a second examination in company with Dr Bond." So, given that the 'second examination' wasn't mentioned by Dr Phillips are you doubting that he did make an examination in company with Dr Bond?

You can't be surely.

And I find it amazing that you seem to pray in aid the fact that Bond never mentioned a preliminary examination in support of the fact that a preliminary examination did take place!!! I've read some twisted arguments in my time but that surely beats the lot.

But even that aside, your claim that "we have no information to contest" is not good enough. That doesn't mean we swallow whatever is reported in a newspaper simply because we don't have the information to contest it, do we? In this case, however, I have given reasons why I think it unlikely – but the problem is that I have no idea what is meant by a 'preliminary examination'.

I note, incidentally, that it's now suddenly become a 'preliminary observation/examination' which is rather amusing.

Why are you having a problem with that?

I've explained to you what I am having a problem with.

[David Orsam]

I'm not talking about believing everything we read, but press accounts need to be tested, collated, compared with what we know.

And that's exactly what I've been doing. You, however, seem to have accepted the Times report as gospel, without any corroborating evidence in support at all.

[David Orsam]

You do realize that the bulk of official records have not survived, I know you appreciate that. So, when the press are able to provide some missing pieces, what justification do you have to dismiss it?

I haven't dismissed anything Jon. I recognize that it's possible that Dr Phillips carried out an examination of the body of some sort before the arrival of the Dr Bond. But I also think it's possible that there was only a single examination commencing at 2pm. The difference between you and me is that you have repeatedly been stating as an established fact that there were two examinations. I am saying that you should not have been doing this on the basis of a single unsourced press report.

[David Orsam]

Neither Phillips nor Bond mention a photographer, but the press do.
So they got that right, why question the rest, and on what grounds?

That's an extraordinary statement Jon. Because the press got one thing right we shouldn't question anything else they say about the events of that day?

I thought we had agreed that the press get some things right and some things wrong.

In this case, the fact that they identified the arrival of the photographer is irrelevant because everyone in Dorset Street could observe this. The point I have been repeatedly making to you is that the press did not have first hand knowledge of what happened inside the room.

That is why we can question it. Especially as, according to you - if I understand you correctly - the transmission of this information was via one of the residents to the press. If that's not right, tell me how the press knew?

As I have been saying since the start, Dr Phillips makes no reference to a preliminary examination in his testimony. He said he arrived at 1.30pm and made a 'subsequent examination". I've commented that it would have been sensible to let the photographer to take his snaps before commencing an examination. I also think that Phillips would have waited until Dr Bond was ready to commence the examination before starting on it. I think there would have been a single post-mortem examination. I don't even know what you mean by 'preliminary examination.'