Was Mary Kelly killed in daylight hours.?

[David Orsam]

Again with the double speak,.. for a bright fellow you play dumb quite well. Carrie Maxwell said she had a conversation on the street with someone she knew, Mary Kelly. Not one person validated that claim....specifically.

I'm hardly playing dumb. I was responding to your statement: "There is no report, anywhere, that states someone made a statement that would corroborate Carries."

As for the conversation itself, it was basically a private conversation between two people and Mrs Maxwell didn't say that there was anyone standing around watching it. I mean, why would there be?

But if there was corroboration from other people that Kelly was alive after 8am on the Friday then we can surely take it that Maxwell did have the conversation that she swore she had. We don't need someone to have witnessed it.

[David Orsam]

They would have publicity, which many "witnesses" in these cases evidently saw, and/or they would assist in the investigation. Since Marys time of death is so unclear, corroborative statements about her being alive and well....(with at least one from someone we can reliably assume actually knew Mary Kelly at all)...in the morning, would be relatively important in the big scheme of things.

I thought we were talking about rewards?

Now you've changed the subject and seem to assume that these petty criminals all wanted to help the police sort out Kelly's time of death. I doubt it was one of their priorities in life frankly.

[Michael W Richards]

I think it's you who is having a problem with context if I may say so Michael.

If other people reported seeing Kelly alive after 8am - which is what I said the newspapers were reporting - that corroborates Maxwell's claim that she saw her alive shortly after that time.

Again with the double speak,.. for a bright fellow you play dumb quite well. Carrie Maxwell said she had a conversation on the street with someone she knew, Mary Kelly. Not one person validated that claim....specifically.

[Michael W Richards]

As for how many investigators were in the room at one time after 1:30, it would be prudent to consider that this was a 10'x10' room with furniture in it.

[Michael W Richards]

Millers Court was certainly 'locked down', but this concerns the room. Before forensic gloves were invented.
Why would it matter if they moved furniture?, what investigation techniques existed in 1888 for them to take advantage of that bed/table/chair staying where it was found?

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.

[David Orsam]

Preliminary.
"an action or event preceding or preparing for something fuller or more important."

Are we good?

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.

[David Orsam]

Why would it matter?

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.

[Wickerman]

The first thing I asked you was what you meant by it and I still haven't had an answer!

Preliminary.
"an action or event preceding or preparing for something fuller or more important."

Are we good?

[Wickerman]

My thinking is no more that they would have wanted a photograph of the scene as it was found, before anyone moved anything. That's just common sense to me and I think they had common sense in 1888.

Why would it matter?

[Wickerman]

This may have been the first locked down crime scene in Londons recorded history, don't downplay the value of that.

Millers Court was certainly 'locked down', but this concerns the room. Before forensic gloves were invented.
Why would it matter if they moved furniture?, what investigation techniques existed in 1888 for them to take advantage of that bed/table/chair staying where it was found?

[David Orsam]

Do you have a problem with addressing a comment in context? The above response was supposed to deal with someone specifically corroborating Carries report.

A bunch of people who claim to know Mary Kelly is worth nothing historically, just one who did is relevant.

I think it's you who is having a problem with context if I may say so Michael.

If other people reported seeing Kelly alive after 8am - which is what I said the newspapers were reporting - that corroborates Maxwell's claim that she saw her alive shortly after that time.

[David Orsam]

No such event is recorded, alluded to, suggested or hinted at in any of the existing records.

But the relevant records don't exist. That's the point.

[David Orsam]

I wouldn't put a great deal of faith in the photographer being there "to preserve the evidence", this concept was unknown in the late 19th century.
It's natural for us to reach this conclusion today with all our CSI knowledge from TV shows, but we shouldn't assume this was the case back then.

The preservation of evidence is a learned process, it evolves over time. If we do assume this was the intent, we shouldn't assume they had a check list on what not to touch, and what was important.

Why would it matter, for example, if they moved one arm?
Why would it matter if they got their fingerprints over everything?
Why would it matter if they trailed blood all over the floor?
Some things were not important in this period, today everything is important.
So lets not use today's advanced knowledge to critique past activities.

I haven't used the expression "to preserve the evidence" so I don't know why you have put it in quotation marks.

My thinking is no more that they would have wanted a photograph of the scene as it was found, before anyone moved anything. That's just common sense to me and I think they had common sense in 1888.

[David Orsam]

Finally, some clarity. Now I see what you are focused on.

Seriously?

Right, so am I correct in assuming that you accept Dr. Phillips entered the room at 1:30, along with several police officials?

Of course he did. He said so in his testimony.

This was reported in the press, and this can be seen from the roof, yes?

Lots of different things were reported in the press, Jon, with different times given for the entry. In view of Phillips' evidence we can ignore them.

And forget the roof. We have no idea what time this Star reporter clambered up there.

After some minutes? past 1:30, the photographer can also be seen to enter.
This was reported in the press.

I wouldn't rely on the press for this, and I doubt they all say the same thing. But it's just obvious that the photographs must have been taken before the post-mortem examination.

Dr Bond, Dukes, Gabe, Brown, etc. all arrive and are seen to enter just prior to 2:00 pm?
Is this ok?

Frankly, no. We can't say what time all these men arrived. The press are too unreliable. Some of them saw Sir Charles Warren making an entrance. But Dr Bond must have been there by 2pm because he said so in his report.

So what does it matter what Dr Phillips & the police officials were doing in the room, they may or may not have touched the body and moved furniture - we will never know. This is a preliminary examination, whether anyone touched anything or not.

You keep saying it is 'a preliminary examination' without explaining what you mean by that. Do you mean Dr Phillips just looked at the scene with his eyes? In that sense all the police officials also carried out 'a preliminary examination' then?

I don't doubt that Dr Phillips could see what was in the room. If that is what you call 'a preliminary examination' then no doubt he did that. But this all started because (following Simon Wood's post) we were trying to establish if Dr Phillips was likely to have estimated a time of death (of 5 of 6 hours earlier) as soon as he walked in through the door at 1.30pm or when the examination proper started at 2pm. So was the start time 1.30pm or 2.00pm?

Personally I don't place any importance on the newspaper report of Phillips' estimate but it was your insistence that there was 'a preliminary examination' which started off this whole discussion. The first thing I asked you was what you meant by it and I still haven't had an answer!

[Wickerman]

The only local Duke/Dukes I can find in the 1890 medical directories is an obstetrician with no mention of forensic interest but is local (entry attached)

"....the exhaustive examination which is being made by Dr. Dukes, of Brick lane, and Dr. Phillips, of Spital-square,..."

You must have got him.