Was Mary Kelly killed in daylight hours.?

[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'.

[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.

[Wickerman]

Okay that's fine - I wasn't actually asking when he "shared" his opinion, rather when he formed it - but I think it follows that you agree with me that it was probably during the 2pm examination.

Well that's good. That's all I was saying in my original response to Simon and I'm glad we've got that cleared up.

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.

[Simon Wood]

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.

The nature of those events are anyone's guess.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Three editions of the Echo were published — at 3:00 pm, 5:00 pm, and 6:30 pm.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon.

I was aware of that report, but I never knew which edition it was.
So it does look like the reporter was writing for their 3:00 pm edition.

[David Orsam]

I asked you - "What happened to this "common sense" with the graffiti?
On their list of priorities, where did the "preservation of evidence" fall in that case?"

So I fail to see how that implies common sense didn't exist. What I am trying to impress on you is that what you assume is common sense today, does not represent common sense of a century ago.
They had different priorities, we must look at this case with a 19th century point of view, not a 21st century p.o.v.

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

[David Orsam]

Three editions of the Echo were published — at 3:00 pm, 5:00 pm, and 6:30 pm.

Didn't most of the London papers publish special early editions on 9 November? And possibly later editions too?

Anyway, I think we should not be misled by the word "now" in the Echo's report. We can see from the Evening Post that there was an agency report timed at 2.40pm (i.e. 'A later despatch from Whitechapel at 2.40pm says...') and I don't think it can be regarded as the equivalent of a live tweet or something like that, giving a running commentary of what was happening at that precise time.

[Wickerman]

That's rather an ironic post in response to my question "Again, you seem to be suggesting that common sense did not exist in 1888. Is that really what you are saying?"

I asked you - "What happened to this "common sense" with the graffiti?
On their list of priorities, where did the "preservation of evidence" fall in that case?"

So I fail to see how that implies common sense didn't exist. What I am trying to impress on you is that what you assume is common sense today, does not represent common sense of a century ago.
They had different priorities, we must look at this case with a 19th century point of view, not a 21st century p.o.v.

[David Orsam]

First off, I don't accept the Times report as reliable knowing from a variety of other sources that Phillips is consistently reticent (to use their terminology), never offering opinions to the press.
So, I pay no attention to the 5-6 hours estimate.

However, any opinion along those lines from the lead physician conducting a post-mortem is only going to be shared at the conclusion of the post-mortem - just prior to 4:00 pm Friday. Which is when the body was taken away.

Okay that's fine - I wasn't actually asking when he "shared" his opinion, rather when he formed it - but I think it follows that you agree with me that it was probably during the 2pm examination.

Well that's good. That's all I was saying in my original response to Simon and I'm glad we've got that cleared up.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Three editions of the Echo were published — at 3:00 pm, 5:00 pm, and 6:30 pm.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Anyway, look, perhaps we can cut this short. Do you accept that, if Dr Phillips DID actually estimate some form of time of death (be it "five or six hours" earlier) or anything else, the most likely point in time for him to have done so out of the following options: (a) 10.45am, (b) 11.15am, (c) 1.30pm and (d) 2.00pm, is (d) 2.00pm?

First off, I don't accept the Times report as reliable knowing from a variety of other sources that Phillips is consistently reticent (to use their terminology), never offering opinions to the press.
So, I pay no attention to the 5-6 hours estimate.

However, any opinion along those lines from the lead physician conducting a post-mortem is only going to be shared at the conclusion of the post-mortem - just prior to 4:00 pm Friday. Which is when the body was taken away.

[David Orsam]

You didn't answer my question.

That's rather an ironic post in response to my question "Again, you seem to be suggesting that common sense did not exist in 1888. Is that really what you are saying?"

[Wickerman]

Hi All,

A little more grist for the mill.

Echo, 9th November 1888—

"Dr. Bond, of Westminster Hospital, is now (wrote this reporter at 2.40) in the room with the other doctors; and the body is now being photographed. A post-mortem examination will afterwards be made in the same room."

Regards,

Simon

The evening papers like Star, Echo, etc. go to press in the middle of the afternoon. So if the reporter is writing this for publication at the press office, then what he is writing about is not current, meaning it is not happening "now", but it may have been happening when he left Dorset street, 30 minutes ago?
So I doubt we can rely on "2:40" as being the time the body was being photographed.

Against the above we have Dr Bond saying the post-mortem began at 2:00 pm, ....with a photographer in the room? - hardly likely.

[David Orsam]

David.
There was no pressing.
You received an immediate reply to your question from Pat (Pcdunn).

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=421047&postcount=68

The quotations from the press which explained the role of Dr. Phillips was in my reply to Pat (post #70).

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=421049&postcount=70

Over 200 posts later you have been asking the same question.
If you did not accept the reply you were provided with then perhaps you can explain why.

As I've just said, I wasn't asking Pcdunn, I was asking you Jon.

I received no reply from you.

[Wickerman]

Again, you seem to be suggesting that common sense did not exist in 1888. Is that really what you are saying?

You didn't answer my question.