Was Mary Kelly killed in daylight hours.?

[David Orsam]

Hi All,

Only one thing is for certain.

Events in Room 13 took place between 1.30 pm, when the door was pickaxed open, and four o'clock in the afternoon, when the body was removed to Shoreditch Mortuary.

Well you say that Simon but it just brings us back the Times report (the one that you didn't cite properly):

"the opinion of Dr. George Bagster Phillips, the divisional surgeon of the H Division, that when he was called to the deceased (at a quarter to 11) she had been dead some five or six hours."

So not even your statement is certain bearing in mind that he could see the dead body through the window (visual examination?) and he certainly did look through the window to establish that she was dead.

[David Orsam]

I'm more inclined to think the estimate provided by Bond to Anderson was shared by both Bond & Phillips.

If Bond provided an opinion to Anderson that was in direct conflict with the, soon to be released, official autopsy report I would expect Bond to have made mention of this to Anderson.
That said, I do remember Bond was known to contradict his peers, as in the Mylett case.

Well now you've gone into full speculation mode.

My only interest in this discussion is whether Dr Phillips is likely to have formed a view as to the time of death prior to the 2pm 'post mortem examination'.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

George Bagster Phillips wins the Doctor of the Century Award if he was able to peek through a broken window into a darkened room and conclude that the deceased had been dead "some five or six hours."

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

And what I have been trying to impress on you is that you are wrong. The Daily Telegraph report clearly shows this.

That article continued by saying, "there was comparatively little blood" - really???

Further on we read:
"...the police, having satisfied themselves that no weapon had been left, reserving a complete investigation of the contents of the room for a later opportunity."

That line reflects the police interest, which must be the inventory list referred to elsewhere, which sadly has not survived.
A written inventory is far more useful than a glass plate photograph.

The Daily News offers an agency report which gives a different reason:
"...and sent for a photographer, who took several photographs of the remains."

Where the D.T. (which you speak of) made only a general observation.
"Before anything was disturbed a photograph was taken of the interior of the room."

We don't have any examples of the interior of the room, but we do have examples of 'the remains' being photographed.

So does that mean we should not accept the report in the Daily Telegraph?

Finally, several times I have asked you what harm to the investigation would there have been if Phillips had moved a chair, or her arm?

Care to share your thoughts?

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

George Bagster Phillips wins the Doctor of the Century Award if he was able to peek through a broken window into a darkened room and conclude that the deceased had been dead "some five or six hours."

That assumes he was correct in his conclusion.

I understand what you are saying but there are nevertheless two facts to consider. Firstly, the Times newspaper said he did do what you are suggesting. Secondly, he did peek through a broken window into a darkened room and conclude that the woman lying on the bed was dead. If he could do that. he might, at the same time, have formed a view (rightly or wrongly, rationally or irrationally) that she looked as if she had been dead for five or six hours.

[Wickerman]

Well now you've gone into full speculation mode.

My only interest in this discussion is whether Dr Phillips is likely to have formed a view as to the time of death prior to the 2pm 'post mortem examination'.

???
Didn't you just offer your own speculation that "it was probably during his 2pm examination".

I was taking your lead...

[David Orsam]

Care to share your thoughts?

Yes, my thoughts are that, unbelievably, once again, you have entirely missed the point.

I'm not saying that the Daily Telegraph's report was correct. In fact, my point works just as well if the Daily Telegraph's report was a pure invention from the imaginative mind of the reporter.

In which case, it follows that he had it in his mind in November 1888 that the police would want to take photographs before disturbing the crime scene. Thus, it is not unhistorical - it cannot possibly be unhistorical - to suggest that the police and doctors might have thought the same.

[Wickerman]

That assumes he was correct in his conclusion.

I understand what you are saying but there are nevertheless two facts to consider. Firstly, the Times newspaper said he did do what you are suggesting. Secondly, he did peek through a broken window into a darkened room and conclude that the woman lying on the bed was dead. If he could do that. he might, at the same time, have formed a view (rightly or wrongly, rationally or irrationally) that she looked as if she had been dead for five or six hours.

Why don't we just shelve the Times report, it doesn't instill confidence.

[David Orsam]

???
Didn't you just offer your own speculation that "it was probably during his 2pm examination".

I was taking your lead...

My post was predicated on the fact that the Times was correct to say that he had formed a view as to the time of death (being five or six hours prior to a certain point in time). If the Times was wrong then there is simply no discussion to be had. If it was right, then my answer was based on the evidence given by Dr Phillips when he referred to his "subsequent examination", to the known fact of the photographs being taken and to Dr Bond's reference in his report to his examination commencing at 2pm. In other words, an evidence based conclusion.

Your speculation - and please note my expression "full speculation mode" - came out of nowhere and doesn't connect with any evidence.

[David Orsam]

Why don't we just shelve the Times report, it doesn't instill confidence.

Direct your comment at Simon. I didn't introduce it into this thread.

[Wickerman]

In which case, it follows that he had it in his mind in November 1888 that the police would want to take photographs before disturbing the crime scene. Thus, it is not unhistorical - it cannot possibly be unhistorical - to suggest that the police and doctors might have thought the same.

It would be of some significance if a policeman had wrote that, not a reporter.

Look, a private individual like Joseph Bell can hold very incisive opinions on how to approach evidence, but his opinions were his own, they were not shared by any police department anywhere until Conan Doyle created his fictional detective.

So don't try tell me that if a reporter can speculate a reason for the photographer being present then it must have been the result of "common sense" on behalf of the police.
It wasn't!

[David Orsam]

So don't try tell me that if a reporter can speculate a reason for the photographer being present then it must have been the result of "common sense" on behalf of the police.
It wasn't!

That's not what I'm trying to tell you at all. What I am trying to tell you is that the notion of taking the photographs before disturbing the crime scene is patently not an unhistorical one.

If the photographer could think it in 1888 then so could the police. I'm not saying they did, only that it wasn't unhistorical, which is what you accused me of being (hence my reference to the Telegraph report).

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

The Times, 12th November 1888, also reported another well-known medical practitioner.

"It is the opinion of Mr. McCarthy, the landlord of 26, Dorset-street, that the woman was murdered at a much earlier hour than 8 o'clock, and that Mrs. Maxwell and the other person must have been mistaken."

How might he have reached this opinion?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

The Times, 12th November 1888, also reported another well-known medical practitioner.

"It is the opinion of Mr. McCarthy, the landlord of 26, Dorset-street, that the woman was murdered at a much earlier hour than 8 o'clock, and that Mrs. Maxwell and the other person must have been mistaken."

How might he have reached this opinion?

Because someone told him a cry of "oh murder" had been heard in the middle of the night, and he figured it must have been Kelly, perhaps?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

He must have been a sound sleeper.

Regards,

Simon