Was Mary Kelly killed in daylight hours.?

[Wickerman]

What I read in #62, Jon, was you saying this:

"Dr. Phillips did make a preliminary examination on entering the room at 1:30, after which the photographer appears to have been permitted to enter, prior to the post-mortem beginning at 2:00 pm."

There was no mention there that your source was the press. There was no qualification or caveat of any kind.

You could have said "I think/believe that Dr Phillips made a preliminary examination" or "It appears that Dr Phillips made a preliminary examination' or, even better, "According to the Times, Dr Phillips made a preliminary examination'. But you said nothing like that. You said "Dr Phillips did make a preliminary examination". It was only after I pressed you that you revealed that you only had one real source for this, namely the report in the Times of 10 November.

Do you at least understand the point I'm making?

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.

[Scott Nelson]

The first post-mortem was probably done in the room because she was in so many pieces.

[David Orsam]

So, why would you ask anyone what it means?

I certainly wouldn't ask anyone Jon. I was specifically asking you because you were the one who used the expression:

"Dr. Phillips did make a preliminary examination on entering the room at 1:30..."

You didn't say a reported or so-called preliminary examination, or put quotes around the phrase. You, therefore, adopted it as your own expression and I assume you don't use expressions unless you know what they mean.

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?

[Wickerman]

#255 above, however, you tell me for the very first time that, "A preliminary examination can be anything from picking up every piece of evidence, to just a superficial walk-around the room". I have no doubt that Phillips might well have superficially walked around the room at 1.30pm. Had you said this back on 9th July we might have not wasted four whole days on this!

David.

An accountant may make a preliminary exam. of your tax records.
A mechanic may make a prelim. exam. of your car engine.
Your doctor may make a prelim. exam. of your chest.

Do you think "preliminary examination" means the same to everyone?
I hardly think so, and whether it is limited to a visual exam. or whether "hands-on" is required will depend on the individual.

So, why would you ask anyone what it means?

From what we read, subsequent to entering the room, Phillips accompanied by Abberline, Arnold, possibly Beck, and a few others inspected the room.
Personally, I feel quite sure that the inspection conducted by Abberline was quite different to that done by Phillips. It is only obvious that they all viewed the same scene, yet they are both looking for something very different.

Abberline was possibly oblivious to what Phillips was looking for, and Phillips possibly had little concern for what Abberline was looking for.
Yet they both conducted their own inspections/examinations/investigations, whatever you want to call it.
This is all the press were trying to convey, at least that is how I read it.

The post-mortem will follow at 2:00 pm.

[David Orsam]

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."

Yes, it's clear from an examination of the evening papers on 9 November that there were two press agency reports referring to the medical men which were issued within a short space of each other during the early afternoon, the first shortly after 2pm, the second at 2.40pm. We can see this most clearly in the London Evening Post of 9 November which said:

"The Divisional Surgeon arrived at the scene of the murder at five minutes to two o’clock, accompanied by Mr. Dukes, another doctor, and they at once proceeded to view the body. It is confidently stated that the deceased was seen after 10 o’clock this morning in company with a paramour when they were both drinking at the public-house at the corner of Dorset-street. The deceased’s name is Mary Jane Kelly, and the man she lived with sells oranges in the streets. After speaking to her in the public house he left her there for the purpose of vending oranges, and he states that he did not see her again until her corpse was discovered.

A later despatch from Whitechapel at 2.40pm says the mutilation of the body reveal such a shocking state of things as has probably never been equalled in the annals of crime. The head was not lying apart from the body, but was hanging by a mere thread. Both ears and the nose were cut off. All the flesh was stripped completely off the thighs and the woman was not only disembowelled but the womb and other parts are missing similar to the previous murders in this locality. Mr. Bond of Westminster Hospital, was in the room with the other doctors and the body was photographed. A post mortem examination will be made. Dr. J.R. Gabe, of Mecklenberg-square, has seen the body, but in reply to questions put to him declined to give any details. He merely says that he has seen a great deal in dissecting rooms but that he never in his life saw such a horrible sight as the murdered woman presents. In addition to the mutilations already named it was afterward ascertained that the forehead and even the cheeks were skinned, and one hand pushed into the stomach."

What is, perhaps, interesting to note is the statement that "A post mortem examination will be made". For me, that ties in with other newspapers referring to what was happening in the room, involving all the doctors, as a preliminary examination. No doubt everyone would have expected the post-mortem to take place in the mortuary. I think it's only really because Dr Bond seems to label the thing in his report as the post-mortem examination that we can legitimately call it that.

[David Orsam]

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

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

And this is the second time that you have suggested, by the use of quotes, that I have referred to the "preservation of evidence". I have not. I really am going to have to report you to Pierre for putting words into my mouth because he doesn't like it when that happens at all. If he notices it, I have no doubt he is going to write a very strongly worded post complaining about it.

[David Orsam]

????
You did read the quotes I provided, that I consistently provide?
There is no mystery where the information comes from. The quote from the press is right there, so it is not in dispute.
Why would I need to write "According to the press", when I quote the source so anyone can see it firsthand?

What I read in #62, Jon, was you saying this:

"Dr. Phillips did make a preliminary examination on entering the room at 1:30, after which the photographer appears to have been permitted to enter, prior to the post-mortem beginning at 2:00 pm."

There was no mention there that your source was the press. There was no qualification or caveat of any kind.

You could have said "I think/believe that Dr Phillips made a preliminary examination" or "It appears that Dr Phillips made a preliminary examination' or, even better, "According to the Times, Dr Phillips made a preliminary examination'. But you said nothing like that. You said "Dr Phillips did make a preliminary examination". It was only after I pressed you that you revealed that you only had one real source for this, namely the report in the Times of 10 November.

Do you at least understand the point I'm making?

[David Orsam]

Because Phillips, Abberline & Co. were in there first, after 1:30.
It's not really that complicated.

There is no sense to that post. How does Phillips, Abberline & Co. being there first at 1.30 prevent the photographer from being ushered straight into the room when he arrived?

[David Orsam]

Something that fell out of the sky on November the 9th?

Hey, they used bloodhounds, traced footprints, and accepted eyewitness testimony long before they apparently became imbued with your "common sense".

I really have no idea what that means. Are you saying common sense did not exist in 1888?

[David Orsam]

It seems like prior to November 9th 1888 none of these educated gentlemen had sufficient "common sense".

I have no idea why you say that. It's not based on anything I said.

[David Orsam]

At what point did all these professional gentlemen suddenly become enlightened at the same time?,....seeing as how the photographing of a crime scene was never done before!

Amazing then that the Daily Telegraph reporter wrote of photographs being taken before anything was disturbed. And according to you he was making it up! So he must have been some kind of prophetic genius to think that this was the police mindset in 1888. Perhaps he was a modern reporter from the 21st century who had been teleported back to the past, do you think?

[David Orsam]

So you choose to describe a preliminary examination as a visual assessment, did we just waste half a day on this?

The very first thing I asked you back in #66 on the 9th July was what you meant by 'preliminary examination'. Thus:

"What do you mean by a 'preliminary examination' and what is the evidence that such a thing occurred?"

You never responded. I have repeatedly asked you the same question to no avail.

In #255 above, however, you tell me for the very first time that, "A preliminary examination can be anything from picking up every piece of evidence, to just a superficial walk-around the room". I have no doubt that Phillips might well have superficially walked around the room at 1.30pm. Had you said this back on 9th July we might have not wasted four whole days on this!

[David Orsam]

There was considerably more to the post-mortem, yet he mentions nothing that was not obtained by a simple cursory examination.

Well I asked you a number of times what you meant by 'preliminary examination' and you didn’t tell me it was "a simple cursory examination".

But I think you are confused about what was happening at the inquest. The coroner only wanted to be told the immediate cause of death. Nothing else. So it doesn't matter if it took Dr Phillips 2 seconds or 2 hours to work it out; that's all that told the coroner.

He wasn't expected or asked to go into the details of his examination. In fact, the coroner expressly said that all further details from the doctor's examination would be held back.

[David Orsam]

That, was his examination.
The post-mortem was not only to determine cause of death, as he says was all too apparent visually from surveying the scene.

No he didn't! He most certainly did not say that the cause of death was "all too apparent visually from surveying the scene". You are now putting words in the doctor's mouth. He said he drew conclusions about the cause of death from his "subsequent examination". What was he indicating by his use of the word "subsequent" is the big question.

[David Orsam]

No argument there, but I don't see the point of this post either.

Seriously?

Let me remind you then.

I said to you in #213:

"The point I have been repeatedly making to you is that the press did not have first hand knowledge of what happened inside the room."

You replied in #227:

"You don't know that.
The culture among the City police, of whom Dr Brown was attached was totally different. The press had a good rapport with anyone connected to the City authorities, not so with the Met. or Scotland Yard. Plus, the photographer may not have been sworn to secrecy over what he saw, or what he overheard.
You're guessing."

I replied in #238:

"Do you understand what "first hand knowledge" means Jon?

Everything you have mentioned there is second hand knowledge.

Even you agree, I think, that there were no reporters in the room."

So your response in #227 (i.e. "you don't know that" and "you're guessing") was quite wrong. I do know that the press did not have first hand knowledge of what happened inside the room. That was "the point" of my post.