Was Mary Kelly killed in daylight hours.?

[Michael W Richards]

the articles describe entirely separate examinations Joshua.
The Times, on Saturday 10th, cannot refer to the autopsy of Saturday morning. The Times is a morning paper and so goes to print overnight. It is out on the streets long before the official autopsy began.
The quote I provided refers to Friday.

Since Phillips says that he waited until 1:30 to enter the room, and his "arrival" on the scene was at 11:15, his "examination" prior to Bonds arrival would amount to this;

" 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, after the injury which caused death, from that side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition previously mentioned. The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliasse, pillow, and sheet at the top corner of the bedstead nearest to the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery, which was the immediate cause of death, was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head and neck in the top right-hand corner. "

Seems that the examination was likely just an inspection.

"Dr Phillips, on his arrival, carefully examined the body of the dead woman, and later on made a second examination in company with Dr Bond, from Westminster, Dr Gordon Brown, from the City, Dr Duke from Spitalfields, and Dr Phillip's assistant".

[Batman]

Well there are three obvious possibilities:

1. To burn something.
2. To generate heat.
3. To generate light.

As for the third possibility, you seem assume that there was 'daylight' inside Kelly's room whose windows were covered on a cloudy November morning. I'm not aware of any evidence which tells us whether it was dark or light in Kelly's room that morning.

I accept all the possibilities. The official one is to generate light. Inspector Abberline's inquest testimony, 12 November 1888, quoted in Evans and Rumbelow, p. 185; Evans and Skinner, pp. 375–376 and Marriott, p. 177; Fido, p. 95 Meaning it was night time when she was murdered. Curtains were drawn.

that's the first time Ive heard this take on it-he threw clothes on the fire to put it out to make it dark.

whats your thinking here-please expound.

Well because the kettle spout and handle melted he wasn't really attending to the fire to keep a light. He seemed to have blitzed the fire grate with something that burned very hot and melted items around it.

There were traces of a large fire having been kept up in the grate, so much so that it had melted the spout of a kettle off. We have since gone through the ashes in the fireplace; there were remnants of clothing, a portion of a brim of a hat, and a skirt, and it appeared as if a large quantity of women's clothing had been burnt.

The fire was still burning when they arrived in the morning.

I think he grabbed a pile of clothes and threw them onto the fire. Then blitzed her in the bed by pulling the sheet over her.

[Abby Normal]

I accept all the possibilities. The official one is to generate light. Inspector Abberline's inquest testimony, 12 November 1888, quoted in Evans and Rumbelow, p. 185; Evans and Skinner, pp. 375–376 and Marriott, p. 177; Fido, p. 95 Meaning it was night time when she was murdered. Curtains were drawn.



Well because the kettle spout and handle melted he wasn't really attending to the fire to keep a light. He seemed to have blitzed the fire grate with something that burned very hot and melted items around it.

There were traces of a large fire having been kept up in the grate, so much so that it had melted the spout of a kettle off. We have since gone through the ashes in the fireplace; there were remnants of clothing, a portion of a brim of a hat, and a skirt, and it appeared as if a large quantity of women's clothing had been burnt.

The fire was still burning when they arrived in the morning.

I think he grabbed a pile of clothes and threw them onto the fire. Then blitzed her in the bed by pulling the sheet over her.

Hi Batman
Thanks. well I think he pulled the sheet over her too as he attacked her. don't know about your take re the fire and clothes though. Seems to me if night time killing (and I think it was)-the initial fire had died down and after he killed her he wanted more light to see what he was doing-so threw clothes on there to stoke it up a bit. the melted spout-indicates that he got what he wanted. a large bright fire.

[David Orsam]

I accept all the possibilities. The official one is to generate light. Inspector Abberline's inquest testimony, 12 November 1888, quoted in Evans and Rumbelow, p. 185; Evans and Skinner, pp. 375–376 and Marriott, p. 177; Fido, p. 95 Meaning it was night time when she was murdered. Curtains were drawn.

Really, there is no such thing as 'an official possibility'. Abberline's inquest testimony, as recorded in his deposition, was as follows (with my emphasis):

"articles of womans clothing had been burnt which I presume was for the purpose of light as there was only one piece of candle in the room."

So it was no more than assumption. Abberline was a detective for sure, and his views should be respected, but he was not an all seeing, all knowing, psychic.

Even if he was right, we do not know if there was sufficient light in Kelly's room at 9am, due to the curtains, so that further light would be useful, as I have already mentioned.

Curtains can be drawn for reasons of privacy and, indeed, to keep out light. If they kept out light it might explain why more light was needed. But equally the murderer could have been burning something or requiring heat.

[Wickerman]

As I thought, the source of your belief that the Dr Phillips conducted two examinations is the press. The same press who, you told us earlier in this thread, were not allowed in Millers Court, "so a Times reporter could hardly have overheard the Doctor, much less interviewed him."

It's almost like you are suggesting that there is an inconsistency there, I don't see why. No reporter needs to interview a doctor to learn what the doctors are doing in the court. There is even a report of pressmen on the rooftops looking down into the court.
The residents were permitted to leave at 5:30 pm, plenty of time for reporters to gather from them what had taken place in the court to publish in the Saturday morning papers.
There is no inconsistency here.

The quotes you have posted are inconsistent with each other.

I'm aware that the Morning Advertiser has several doctors involved in the preliminary examination. Whereas the others only mention Dr. Phillips.
That is understandable if their reporter was not there when Drs Bond, Brown, Duke, etc. arrived later.
The joys of dealing with a variety of sources, and their various editors, all with different limitations of space.

Given that Phillips refers to entering the room at 1.30 but then mentions his 'subsequent examination' I would have thought it more likely that the photographer came in shortly after 1.30pm (before the body was touched) before all the doctors, with Bond, commenced an examination at 2pm.

The sequence of events, that I see, described in the press are:
- Door is opened at 1:30 pm, Dr. Phillips enters and makes a preliminary examination.
- The photographer (who arrived at 1:30) is then permitted by Dr Phillips to enter and take photographs.
- Between 1:30-2:00 Drs Bond, Duke, Brown, and others arrive at Millers Court.
- At 2:00 pm the post-mortem begins.

[Wickerman]

That's not the case Abby. I always argue on the side of there being nothing to prove Maxwell wrong, which is a different matter entirely.

Can't the same be said for all the witnesses?

[Michael W Richards]

I'm going to have to spoil your spoiler by telling you that this isn't correct.

Maxwell gave evidence under oath that she knew Mary Kelly. There is no evidence to the contrary.

Nor is there any corroborative evidence, so it remains her version, not the version that needs challenging.

[Michael W Richards]

The only evidence that any clothing was burned are the piece of velvet and the remains of the hat rim, and both were partially destroyed, which suggests that when they were put on the fire the fire was already low.

[Wickerman]

Since Phillips says that he waited until 1:30 to enter the room, and his "arrival" on the scene was at 11:15, his "examination" prior to Bonds arrival would amount to this;

" 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, after the injury which caused death, from that side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition previously mentioned. The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliasse, pillow, and sheet at the top corner of the bedstead nearest to the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery, which was the immediate cause of death, was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head and neck in the top right-hand corner. "

Seems that the examination was likely just an inspection.

"Dr Phillips, on his arrival, carefully examined the body of the dead woman, and later on made a second examination in company with Dr Bond, from Westminster, Dr Gordon Brown, from the City, Dr Duke from Spitalfields, and Dr Phillip's assistant".

Exactly, as I explained to David, Dr. Phillips makes no mention at the inquest of the post-mortem with his peers. What he does mention is the preliminary examination.

[Pierre]

It's almost like you are suggesting that there is an inconsistency there, I don't see why. No reporter needs to interview a doctor to learn what the doctors are doing in the court. There is even a report of pressmen on the rooftops looking down into the court.
The residents were permitted to leave at 5:30 pm, plenty of time for reporters to gather from them what had taken place in the court to publish in the Saturday morning papers.
There is not inconsistency here.



I'm aware that the Morning Advertiser has several doctors involved in the preliminary examination. Whereas the others only mention Dr. Phillips.
That is understandable if their reporter was not there when Drs Bond, Brown, Duke, etc. arrived later.
The joys of dealing with a variety of sources, and their various editors, all with different limitations of space.



The sequence of events, that I see, described in the press are:
- Door is opened at 1:30 pm, Dr. Phillips enters and makes a preliminary examination.
- The photographer (who arrived at 1:30) is then permitted by Dr Phillips to enter and take photographs.
- Between 1:30-2:00 Drs Bond, Duke, Brown, and others arrive at Millers Court.
- At 2:00 pm the post-mortem begins.

There are newspapers from 10th November reporting that Dukes was the first medical man at Millerīs Court.

There are also papers reporting that Dukes and Bond arrived early.

They did not testify at the inquest.

Phillips did. But did not mention Dukes and Bond.

[David Orsam]

It's almost like you are suggesting that there is an inconsistency there, I don't see why. No reporter needs to interview a doctor to learn what the doctors are doing in the court. There is even a report of pressmen on the rooftops looking down into the court.
The residents were permitted to leave at 5:30 pm, plenty of time for reporters to gather from them what had taken place in the court to publish in the Saturday morning papers.
There is not inconsistency here.

What are you saying? A reporter on the roof observed the 'preliminary examination' of Dr Phillips and was reporting what he saw? Seriously?

Or are you saying the residents of Miller's Court were being kept informed of what was happening in Kelly's room? Seriously?

So perhaps, equally, one of those residents also became aware that Dr Phillips thought that murder had been committed five or six hours before he arrived on the scene?

I'm aware that the Morning Advertiser has several doctors involved in the preliminary examination. Whereas the others only mention Dr. Phillips.
That is understandable if their reporter was not there when Drs Bond, Brown, Duke, etc. arrived later.
The joys of dealing with a variety of sources, and their various editors, all with different limitations of space.

Oh, it's an issue of space is it? There's me thinking that perhaps they were speculating what had happened in that room.

The sequence of events, that I see, described in the press are:
- Door is opened at 1:30 pm, Dr. Phillips enters and makes a preliminary examination.
- The photographer (who arrived at 1:30) is then permitted by Dr Phillips to enter and take photographs.
- Between 1:30-2:00 Drs Bond, Duke, Brown, and others arrive at Millers Court.
- At 2:00 pm the post-mortem begins.

But the question I asked you ages ago which you didn't answer is what does 'preliminary examination' mean?

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Wickerman;421187

The sequence of events, that I see, described in the press are:
- Door is opened at 1:30 pm, Dr. Phillips enters and makes a preliminary examination.
- The photographer (who arrived at 1:30) is then permitted by Dr Phillips to enter and take photographs.
- Between 1:30-2:00 Drs Bond, Duke, Brown, and others arrive at Millers Court.
- At 2:00 pm the post-mortem begins.

There are newspapers from 10th November reporting that Dukes was the first medical man at Millerīs Court.

There are also papers reporting that Dukes and Bond arrived early.

Dukes and Bond did not testify at the inquest.

Phillips did. But did not mention Dukes and Bond.

[David Orsam]

Exactly, as I explained to David, Dr. Phillips makes no mention at the inquest of the post-mortem with his peers. What he does mention is the preliminary examination.

So why then, Jon, does he speak of entering the room at 1.30 and then speak of his 'subsequent examination'?

And what do you mean by 'preliminary examination'?

Despite your suggestion, Phillips never uses the expression.

[Batman]

Hi Batman
Thanks. well I think he pulled the sheet over her too as he attacked her. don't know about your take re the fire and clothes though. Seems to me if night time killing (and I think it was)-the initial fire had died down and after he killed her he wanted more light to see what he was doing-so threw clothes on there to stoke it up a bit. the melted spout-indicates that he got what he wanted. a large bright fire.

That's what Abberline thought from the evidence. However, the fire was still warm when they arrived. It had been burning. MJK wasn't burning her clothes to have a fire so this was done by JtR. Clothes don't burn quickly on the fire and just putting one at a time won't cause the melting of a kettle. So I think he threw a pile in to darken the place (his choice of conditions) and then blitzed her in the dark. After he murdered her he left and by then the fire was starting to burn through the clothes and eventually turned into a blaze melting the kettle.

The attack in Mitre Sq., tells me he prefers darkness to light for blitzing them.

[Joshua Rogan]

the articles describe entirely separate examinations Joshua.
The Times, on Saturday 10th, cannot refer to the autopsy of Saturday morning. The Times is a morning paper and so goes to print overnight. It is out on the streets long before the official autopsy began.
The quote I provided refers to Friday.

The Times article I quoted was from Monday 12th, Jon, so does refer to the Saturday autopsy. The Star article is from the 10th, so technically could also refer to the Saturday autopsy, although I concede it reads like both examinations it mentions were on the Friday. It's just strange that both papers list the same doctors in the same order being present if they were two separate examinations.