Was Mary Kelly killed in daylight hours.?

[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.

[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.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

He must have been a sound sleeper.

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,

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]

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).

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[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