Was Mary Kelly killed in daylight hours.?

[David Orsam]

Why would you think I would know?
Do you want me to Google it, or can you do it yourself?

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?

[David Orsam]

Yes, but this was the 1880's, a time when you had to be caught in the act, long before anyone grasped the idea of forensics. Even 'Sherlock Holmes' was new on the scene.

I did ask you why it would matter if anything was touched.

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.

[Michael W Richards]

I've usually been a proponent of strangulation in the other cases, Jon (considering ecchymosis, clenched fists, blood clots in the heart, neckerchiefs) but I thought of something last night in the case of Mary Jane Kelly.

Have you ever read the news article, some time has passed since her murder and new tenants occupy No. 13, where a journalist is touring Miler's Court and, upon entering No. 13, a man lying on the bed points out the black stains of her blood on the wall? {I'm sure the article is "out there somewhere"}

I would think that may have been the result of arterial spray, which probably wouldn't have happened if she had been strangled.

I believe that the writer was Kit Coleman from Toronto, although I cant seem to locate the article you mentioned. Ah...just found the reprint of it, Globe and Mail, August 30th 1988....originally run in the Mail and Empire, 1909...after the Kitty Ronin murder.

I think that the spray is reported much earlier than that, from Phillips, and we have speculation as to where and how Marys throat was cut..."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".

She was almost certainly the one Canonical who was not subdued before cutting the throat, and its quite possible she was on her right side facing the wall on the right hand side of the bed. Just like someone who shared a bed with someone and was moving over to allow them access to the left hand side of the bed.

[Robert St Devil]

Yet weirdly he doesn't point to any initials... But that's for another thread.

the Miller's Court graffito

[Joshua Rogan]

Have you ever read the news article, some time has passed since her murder and new tenants occupy No. 13, where a journalist is touring Miler's Court and, upon entering No. 13, a man lying on the bed points out the black stains of her blood on the wall

Yet weirdly he doesn't point to any initials... But that's for another thread.

[Robert St Devil]

"Breathing was interfered with prior to death" - Dr. Phillips on the Chapman case.
Dr Bond described ecchymosis around Kelly's neck, and her right hand fingers clenched (no description of left hand).

I've usually been a proponent of strangulation in the other cases, Jon (considering ecchymosis, clenched fists, blood clots in the heart, neckerchiefs) but I thought of something last night in the case of Mary Jane Kelly.

Have you ever read the news article, some time has passed since her murder and new tenants occupy No. 13, where a journalist is touring Miler's Court and, upon entering No. 13, a man lying on the bed points out the black stains of her blood on the wall? {I'm sure the article is "out there somewhere"}

I would think that may have been the result of arterial spray, which probably wouldn't have happened if she had been strangled.

[ohrocky]

This may help as it reflects what I would understand by "preliminary examination" ie an examination of the body at the scene, before the body is moved to the mortuary for the PM.

Confirm or Pronounce Death

Principle: Appropriate personnel must make a determination of death prior to the initiation of the death investigation. The confirmation or pronouncement of death determines jurisdictional responsibilities.

Authorization: Medical Examiner/Coroner Official Office Policy Manual; State or Federal Statutory Authority.

Policy: The investigator shall ensure that appropriate personnel have viewed the body and that death has been confirmed.

Procedure: Upon arrival at the scene, the investigator should:

Locate and view the body.
Check for pulse, respiration and reflexes, as appropriate.
Identify and document the individual who made the official determination of death, including the date, time and location of determination.
Ensure death is pronounced, as required.

(A Guide to Death Scene Investigation: Arriving at the Death Scene - NIJ)

And from the Australian Coroners Act 2008

"preliminary examination" in relation to a body means any of the following procedures—

(a) a visual examination of the body (including a dental examination);

(b) the collection and review of information, including personal and health information relating to the deceased person or the death of the person;

(c) the taking of samples of bodily fluid including blood, urine, saliva and mucus samples from the body (which may require an incision to be made) and the testing of those samples;

(d) the imaging of the body including the use of computed tomography (CT scan), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI scan), x-rays, ultrasound and photography;

(e) the taking of samples from the surface of the body including swabs from wounds and inner cheek, hair samples and samples from under fingernails and from the skin and the testing of those samples;

(f) the fingerprinting of the body;

(g) any other procedure that is not a dissection, the removal of tissue or prescribed to be an autopsy

Of course you need to disregard the modern science content but hopefully it will aid understanding of "preliminary examination"!

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Wickerman;421427]

I'm not talking about believing everything we read, but press accounts need to be tested, collated, compared with what we know.
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.
Why are you having a problem with that?

Hi Wickerman,

The only possible reason I see as to why David has a problem with that is that he can not use historical analyze methods.

What you describe above is a typical situation for historical examinations.

When someone can not perform such they often think they can "read" the sources and understand them at "face value".

Cheers, Pierre

[Wickerman]

That strikes me, if you will forgive me, as a terrible argument.

Dr Phillips referred to his "subsequent examination". Okay, he doesn't actually use the expression "post-mortem", but so what? It's the same thing. A post-mortem examination. He never referred to a 'preliminary examination" did he?

As for Dr Bond, when have I ever said he was there at 1.30? We don't actually know when he arrived but what I am suggesting is that the examination commenced at 2pm after he had arrived, and all the doctors were involved in it.

I can't understand why you have a problem with this. Even if it can't be proved, it must be a possibility that there was only one examination which commenced at 2pm, after the photographs were taken.

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

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'm not talking about believing everything we read, but press accounts need to be tested, collated, compared with what we know.
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.
Why are you having a problem with that?

[Wickerman]

Preservation of the crime scene was just taking root in the force, which is why we see, possibly again for the first time, photographs of the victim while still in the crime scene, and as found by investigators. The fact that they were using more forensic sophistication when examining the scene is evident, the disposition of that scene...where the table was, the placement of the body, the bedding...all of it, would be part of a comprehensive cataloguing of the crime details.

They were becoming a modernized force Jon, and utilizing whatever new techniques and methods were generally considered to of some investigative value.

I know what was beginning, but you seem to be under the impression they had forensic procedures to follow.
They expected bloodhounds to use any remaining scent. Moving things around wouldn't affect that, the presence of others in the room might, but not the moving of evidence.
What benefit was there for police to not touch anything?

[Wickerman]

No. I know what the words 'preliminary' and 'examination' mean. What I don't know is what 'a preliminary examination' consists of in a medical context following a murder in the additional context of a post-mortem examination that is about to take place.

Why would you think I would know?
Do you want me to Google it, or can you do it yourself?

[Wickerman]

Seriously?

Because I'm suggesting that Dr Phillips entered the room with the police at 1.30pm, then the photographer was brought in (before anything was touched or moved), then the examination of Kelly's body commenced at 2pm.

Yes, but this was the 1880's, a time when you had to be caught in the act, long before anyone grasped the idea of forensics. Even 'Sherlock Holmes' was new on the scene.

I did ask you why it would matter if anything was touched.

[Robert St Devil]

were all these doctors celebrities where a journalist atop a roof could say ,,thats dr.g. thats doc brown. thats dr phil.,,?

[David Orsam]

I'm happy you begin with the easy questions.

First, Dr Phillips described the interior of the room with the police, but makes no mention of conducting a post-mortem.

Second, Dr. Bond described the results of a post-mortem, but makes no mention of being in the room at 1:30 with Phillips.

So we have two separate activities, and two separate examinations are described in the press.

That strikes me, if you will forgive me, as a terrible argument.

Dr Phillips referred to his "subsequent examination". Okay, he doesn't actually use the expression "post-mortem", but so what? It's the same thing. A post-mortem examination. He never referred to a 'preliminary examination" did he?

As for Dr Bond, when have I ever said he was there at 1.30? We don't actually know when he arrived but what I am suggesting is that the examination commenced at 2pm after he had arrived, and all the doctors were involved in it.

I can't understand why you have a problem with this. Even if it can't be proved, it must be a possibility that there was only one examination which commenced at 2pm, after the photographs were taken.

[MysterySinger]

This is one theory with regard to the kettle.

Mary needed money (for the rent) and was using her time to solicit for funds. The night was proving productive, but she was cold. On this occasion she brought back a client and decided she needed a cuppa before she went out again - so she put the kettle on to boil while she did the business intending to make a brew once her client had left. Only he stayed to commit his dastardly deed. When he left, the kettle boiled dry - Mary never got her cuppa.

The killer was only one of her visitors that night. He waited to carry out the murder until McCarthy's shop had shut. Once he was satisfied, he left, taking Mary Kelly's earnings with him.