Was Mary Kelly killed in daylight hours.?

[Wickerman]

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.

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

[Wickerman]

This is about the third time you have mentioned forensics. Yet I haven't even mentioned the word. Of course it was common sense to photograph the crime scene before the crime scene was disturbed. Are you seriously asking me to explain why to you?

How many times do I need to ask?
You are treading water David, not able to think of anything that was significant to a 1880's Detective, who mainly relied on eyewitness testimony, boot prints, and the nose of a hound.
That was 1880's forensics for you, so why would it matter if her arm was moved?

[Wickerman]

What Dr Phillips was doing inside 13 Millers Court, however, was known only to those inside the room. And there were no reporters in the room.

No reporters claimed to know, did they?

And, as you said to Simon, there was no chance for the press to interview Dr Phillips.

And, as we know, Dr Phillips did not refer to making a preliminary examination in his inquest testimony.

He spoke of an examination, and then he provided to the court a visual examination of what he found when he entered.
He makes no mention or attempt to describe a post-mortem, which is a very distinct procedure.
A preliminary examination can be anything from picking up every piece of evidence, to just a superficial walk-around the room. The point was the press reported he did this before a photographer was allowed in.
But, the photographer was allowed in before the post-mortem.
Phillips did not mention a photographer at the inquest, yet I can't imagine him not having the plates as part of his evidence. So he possibly didn't mention the photographer because the description he gave to the court occurred prior to the photographer entering the room.
This description was the "preliminary examination" referred to in the press.

[Wickerman]

Jon then posted to say as a matter of fact that Dr Phillips conducted a preliminary examination at 1.30pm. His exact words were:

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

That, you will notice, is an unqualified and categorical statement. There is no suggestion that the only source for it is a single unsourced newspaper report.

Oh, no ,no ,no!
The newspaper articles only supported the testimony of Dr Phillips. His testimony had him making an examination after entering the room at 1:30 pm.

I remained until about 1.30p.m., when the door was broken open by McCarthy, under the direction of Superintendent Arnold. On the door being opened it knocked against a table which was close to the left-hand side of the bedstead, and the bedstead was close against the wooden partition. The mutilated remains of a woman were lying two- thirds over, towards the edge of the bedstead, nearest the door. Deceased had only an under- linen garment upon her, and by subsequent examination I am sure the body had been removed,

You have suggested to me this "subsequent examination" was the post-mortem at 2:00 pm. Yet you have no evidence to support this opinion. Whereas the press describe two examinations, you "believe" there might have been only one.
Of course people in the court, maybe Dr. Brown, the photographer, or even a constable, may have been the source for the press account. This we will never know. There are no shortage of individual sources that a reporter can locate very easily.
Yet you have claimed we cannot know what took place in that room.

There is, however, one other relatively important point which is whether the photographs reflect the scene as it was found at 1.30pm or after Dr Phillips had fiddled about with the body and the sheets.

The possibility exists that this was the case, but whether Phillips moved anything or not is immaterial in my opinion.

The argument, from what I remember is, that Dr. Bond described Kelly's right arm as "slightly abducted from the body", which has been interpreted as being close to lying inline with the body.
Yet the photograph appears to show a right hand over at the far right side of the bed, suggestive that the arm was perpendicular to the body.

The difference then is between when Dr Bond entered the room, and when that photo was taken, nothing to do with Phillips unless he let the photographer in first, and then he alone, moved her arm before Dr Bond arrived.
That, to my mind was the issue, which your line of questioning doesn't seem to align with.

[Wickerman]

Oh no. Not going there any more! LOL!

It was actually a legit question wicky. I was just wondering if it had any larger implications that I was missing. Sorry if it came across as belittling or negative in any way!

No, not at all, I was just having a joke with you.
Trump might need some support about now, I just thought about you.
No matter, I was only funnin'

No larger implications that I can see, David seems to have got his teeth into the press as a source and I can't see the justification for it.
Without the press we wouldn't have anything to talk about in this case.

[David Orsam]

Ah. Got it now. Thanks David. As usual your a scholar and a gentleman.

Thank you Abby.

Of course, one thing that should not be forgotten in all this is that Dr Phillips DID make what could be described as a 'preliminary examination' as soon has he arrived on the scene (which he said in his evidence was 11.15am).

His first priority was to ensure that Mary Kelly was dead. He tells us that he did this by looking through the window pane and came to the conclusion that Kelly (or at least the woman lying on the bed), "was not in need of professional assistance from me". Had he not already done so, THAT would have been his first priority on entering the room.

Given that he worked out that she was dead by looking through the window, it's not impossible that he also concluded that she had been dead for about five or six hours (as reported in the Times). But, if he did, it's a pretty meaningless estimate.

Mind you, if he came to that conclusion during the post-mortem examination then, frankly, it's still not very meaningful!

[David Orsam]

You seem to suggest they are wrong unless we can prove them right.
You don't seem to want to accept any of their reports unless there is official paperwork to confirm it.
It's very idealistic, but hardly workable.
You certainly cannot investigate this case on official paperwork alone.

No Jon - wrong end of the stick again - I'm not suggesting anything of the sort.

I'm saying that you are wrong to say that Dr Phillips DID, as a matter of established fact, carry out a preliminary examination as soon as he entered the room at 1.30. You don't actually know if he did or not.

You should have written "According to the press, Dr Phillips carried out a preliminary examination at 1.30 blah blah blah".

Otherwise I have no idea - and no-one else has any idea - if your information comes from official or reliable corroborated sources or just from a newspaper report.

[Abby Normal]

It's a good question Abby. This all started when Simon Wood drew attention to a report in the Times that Dr Phillips estimated the time of death as "five or six hours" prior to what must have been some form of examination of the body.

Simon completely ignored the fact that the Times also said that this estimate (which thus must have been based on a visual examination, looking through the window) was made at 10.45am. He suggested it must have been done at 1.30pm, when Phillips entered the room.

My response was that - if he actually said what was reported in the Times - it was more likely to have occurred at 2pm when Dr Bond said the post-mortem examination commenced.

Obviously, the estimated time of death changes depending on whether Phillips was talking about five or six hours prior to 10.45, 1.30 or 2.00.

Jon then posted to say as a matter of fact that Dr Phillips conducted a preliminary examination at 1.30pm. His exact words were:

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

That, you will notice, is an unqualified and categorical statement. There is no suggestion that the only source for it is a single unsourced newspaper report.

Now, Abby, to be frank, I don't give a monkeys about when Phillips examined the body. Even if he did refer to "five or six hours" prior to some point in time, it's meaningless as far as I am concerned.

What I am far more concerned about is the making of categorical and unqualified statements, saying that something definitely happened, when we cannot by any means be 100% sure of this. That is why I have pursued Jon so hard throughout this discussion.

There is, however, one other relatively important point which is whether the photographs reflect the scene as it was found at 1.30pm or after Dr Phillips had fiddled about with the body and the sheets.

Ah. Got it now. Thanks David. As usual your a scholar and a gentleman.

[Abby Normal]

I think you're presence is needed on the Trump thread....

Oh no. Not going there any more! LOL!

It was actually a legit question wicky. I was just wondering if it had any larger implications that I was missing. Sorry if it came across as belittling or negative in any way!

[David Orsam]

I'm loath to take credit for something I didn't do. The suggestion that Phillips entered first, then, as we know the photographer arrived at 1:30, he had to wait for permission to enter.
So not my speculation at all, its right there is black and white.

The speculation was in saying that he "waited outside."

How do you know he wasn't ushered straight into the room?

[David Orsam]

So you now choose to believe we have a budding forensic expert working as a reporter?
Or, quite possibly, a doctor or the photographer, told the reporter why he had been sent for?
Therefore, no enlightened forensic expert working for the press.

Why do you keep talking about forensics?

I'm talking about common sense.

[Wickerman]

How do you manage to move from the plural (things) to the singular (that specific point) with such ease?

The reason we know the press get things wrong is from general experience.

The rule is not "they only get things wrong if we can prove it in specific cases, otherwise we assume they are right about everything".

You seem to suggest they are wrong unless we can prove them right.
You don't seem to want to accept any of their reports unless there is official paperwork to confirm it.
It's very idealistic, but hardly workable.
You certainly cannot investigate this case on official paperwork alone.

[David Orsam]

It was reported as the idea of Dr. Phillips, not the police.
It was Dr. Phillips who sent word for the photographer, again, according to the press.

You're making silly points now. Look what I said in #223:

"The benefits of taking a photograph before anything was disturbed were as obvious to the Daily Telegraph reporter as they would have been to the police and the doctors in 1888."

So it doesn't matter whose idea it was to call the photographer. They all would have known of the benefits of taking a photograph before anything was disturbed.

It was Dr. Phillips who sent word for the photographer, again, according to the press.

That's an improvement. Rather than saying "it was Dr Phillips who sent word for the photographer" you have properly qualified it by saying "according to the press".

So why not say the same thing about the so-called 'preliminary examination' of Dr Phillips?

[Wickerman]

I didn't fail to notice you slipping this in, by the way, but it's just pure speculation on your part so I ignored it.

I'm loath to take credit for something I didn't do. The suggestion that Phillips entered first, then, as we know the photographer arrived at 1:30, he had to wait for permission to enter.
So not my speculation at all, its right there is black and white.

[David Orsam]

Oh, I'm not missing any point. You used a claim in the press that you have criticized me for using.

No, I didn't!

I was using the press report to show that a view existed in 1888 that it was a good idea to take a photograph of an undisturbed crime scene.

That is undeniably what the DT reporter was suggesting. It is, therefore, not an unhistorical suggestion, which is what you accused me of.

So, yes, you have, on this occasion, very much missed the point Jon.