Was Mary Kelly killed in daylight hours.?

[Wickerman]

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).

If the City police could attempt to preserve the graffiti, then so could the Met.
They didn't, yet common sense would dictate that was the best strategy.
So much for you assuming common sense was their guide.

The Met had different priorities not always guided by our modern understanding of common sense.

[David Orsam]

He must have been a sound sleeper.

Why do you say that Simon? Do you mean that the cry of murder should have woken him up? Both people who claimed to hear it were already awake. No-one said it woke them up.

Perhaps you are thinking that the "Special Branch operation" which you tell us about (so briefly) in your book should have woken him up. Or perhaps you have finally worked out that someone was pulling your leg.

[David Orsam]

If the City police could attempt to preserve the graffiti, then so could the Met.
They didn't, yet common sense would dictate that was the best strategy.
So much for you assuming common sense was their guide.

The Met had different priorities not always guided by our modern understanding of common sense.

All that the graffiti example shows, Jon, is that you would be wrong to claim that the idea of photographing the writing was unhistorical.

The police understood the benefits of photographing the writing but there was a counter argument that waiting for the photographer and/or allowing the writing to be photographed could lead to a riot.

So unless you can show that there was some kind of counter argument on the afternoon of 9 November that required Dr Phillips to urgently commence his examination before the photographer started taking pictures, the graffiti example gets you nowhere.

[Michael W Richards]

Why do you say that Simon? Do you mean that the cry of murder should have woken him up? Both people who claimed to hear it were already awake. No-one said it woke them up.

Perhaps you are thinking that the "Special Branch operation" which you tell us about (so briefly) in your book should have woken him up. Or perhaps you have finally worked out that someone was pulling your leg.

Maybe McCarthy had heard similar exclamations from Mary in the middle of the night, maybe he deduced that the 2 stories combined help one identify the geographical source of the sound, which would be right around Marys door within the courtyard....(which would be logical and therefore deemed highly speculative by this crowd ), maybe Mary often voiced her disappointment using that specific phrase.

It seems that logic and reason has long been abandoned here.

[Darryl Kenyon]

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

I know this wasn't mentioned at the time but i just wonder when he peered through the window if there was any insect activity round the body, flies etc. Which may have made him conclude, rightly or wrongly that she had been dead for a few hours.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

What makes you think someone was pulling my leg?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

What makes you think someone was pulling my leg?

We've moved on from McCarthy then have we?

Why do I think someone was pulling your leg? Only, Simon, because no-one alive has any first hand knowledge of Special Branch operations from 1888 so anyone who claims special knowledge of them from 1888, especially in the context of Mary Kelly's murder, is obviously having you on.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

I know this may be hard for you to comprehend, but you are wrong.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

I know this may be hard for you to comprehend, but you are wrong.

Well it certainly is hard for me to comprehend from that response, impossible in fact - because you haven't even begun to explain why I might be wrong.

Have you taken the opportunity to explain it in the second revision of your book?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

No.

You'll have to accept [or not] the word of the person who told me.

I have no reason to doubt them, and no wish betray a confidence.

Leave it there, please.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

No.

You'll have to accept [or not] the word of the person who told me.

I have no reason to doubt them, and no wish betray a confidence.

Leave it there, please.

Well I can tell you, Simon, that I certainly do not accept "the word" of the person who supposedly told you (whatever "the word" means) and I have many reasons to doubt them. In fact, it sounds like you have been sold a complete load of cobblers.

[Wickerman]

I know this wasn't mentioned at the time but i just wonder when he peered through the window if there was any insect activity round the body, flies etc. Which may have made him conclude, rightly or wrongly that she had been dead for a few hours.

Hello Darryl.
Any ability to do what you suggest would require Dr Phillips to be an entomologist. I have never read anywhere that he knew entomology. It isn't the kind of experience that comes with being a surgeon.

[GUT]

Hello Darryl.
Any ability to do what you suggest would require Dr Phillips to be an entomologist. I have never read anywhere that he knew entomology. It isn't the kind of experience that comes with being a surgeon.

I think Darryl was referring to McCarthy,and his reported statement that MJK was killed hours before the sightings, not Phillips

[Wickerman]

The police understood the benefits of photographing the writing but there was a counter argument that waiting for the photographer and/or allowing the writing to be photographed could lead to a riot.

There never was a satisfactory argument to justify the destruction of evidence before a trial in a murder case. The 19th century version of "common sense" differs markedly from our understanding today.

Well you know, that would never happen today, because today we put evidence far ahead of any potential social unrest.
This situation has nothing to do with any "unhistorical" event, but the application of "common sense".
The incident demonstrates just how different the application of that virtue was in the late 19th century police.

Just because something makes sense to us today does not automatically mean the police in the 19th century took the same view.

So, lets put your "common sense" escape clause aside, and answer my question.
What difference would it have made to the investigation if Phillips had moved a chair or an arm before the photographer came in to the room?

[Wickerman]

I think Darryl was referring to McCarthy,and his reported statement that MJK was killed hours before the sightings, not Phillips

McCarthy, .....an entomologist?