Was Mary Kelly killed in daylight hours.?

[David Orsam]

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?

Again you refer to forensics. I'm not talking about forensics Jon.

I have already asked you – without reply - if I really need to explain to you why it would have been beneficial to have taken the photographs before anything was disturbed in the room. Let me know if you actually need this to be explained to you.

[David Orsam]

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.

That's a classic non-sequitur. Yes, Phillips described what he found WHEN HE ENTERED. But when he entered there wasn't a post-mortem examination being conducted was there? So THAT is why he doesn't attempt to "describe a post-mortem".

All he then goes on to say is what he concluded about the cause of Mary's death which IS something that would or could have been considered in a post-mortem. So it's simply not possible to say whether his reference to the 'subsequent examination' is to some sort of 'preliminary examination' before Dr Bond arrived or to the 'post-mortem examination'. But, in my view, his use of the word 'subsequent' suggests to me the latter.

[Simon Wood]

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

[David Orsam]

No reporters claimed to know, did they?

Well, yes they did. Of course they did. The Times claimed that Bond conducted a preliminary examination. So the Times reporter claimed to know what Dr Phillips was doing in the room. That's rather obvious isn't it? Did I really need to say so?

[David Orsam]

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.

I'm afraid I don't understand any of this. I don't know what "argument" you are talking about. It doesn't seem to be relevant to anything I am saying.

[David Orsam]

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.

That's not my claim. I am saying that you don't know for sure what took place in that room. You can't - because you are relying on a press report.

Yes, the Times reporter might have had a reliable source. Of course he could. But exactly the same is true for every single "fact" reported in the newspapers, including Dr Phillips saying he thought the murder had been committed five or six hours earlier (from some point in time). We just don't know.

[David Orsam]

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.

Not all the press describe two examinations, Jon. The Morning Advertiser, for example, as you know, only describes one. So you are wrong, meaning that I do have "evidence" to support this opinion.

Phillips did not say he entered the room at 1.30pm and immediately set to work examining the body. He used the phrase "subsequent examination" which is ambiguous. What did he think he was adding to the word "examination" by prefixing the word "subsequent" to it I wonder?

But I have explained my thinking. Bond says that the post-mortem examination commenced at 2pm. It seems likely (to me at least) that between 1.30pm and 2pm the photographer came in and took snaps. It doesn't leave much room for any kind of examination by Phillips. The use of the word "subsequent" by the doctor suggests to me that he was talking about a period of time after 1.30pm.

I fully appreciate that we have some press reports saying that Phillips was engaged in a 'preliminary examination' at some time before Bond arrived but those are, and must be, second hand reports, possibly based on hearsay. So while it's possible that there might have been such an examination – whatever that entailed – it's equally possible that the press got the wrong end of the stick and Phillips waited to commence the examination until Dr Bond had arrived.

But I would comment that if the 'preliminary examination' only involved a visual examination then Dr Phillips probably wasn't in a position to make an estimate of time of death until the 2pm examination – which is the original point I made to Simon.

[David Orsam]

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.

That's right. After, not upon entering the room at 1.30pm. He specifically referred to a 'subsequent examination' which, to me, suggests one carried out later in time.

If the photographer came in to take pictures before the 'post-mortem examination' which started at 2pm that doesn't leave a lot of time does it?

[Wickerman]

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?

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

[Wickerman]

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.

????
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?

[Wickerman]

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

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

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

[Wickerman]

Why do you keep talking about forensics?

I'm talking about common sense.

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".

[Wickerman]

They all would have known of the benefits of taking a photograph before anything was disturbed.

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!

So much for your "common sense" argument. It seems like prior to November 9th 1888 none of these educated gentlemen had sufficient "common sense".
Yet, on that day, all of a sudden, they all became true professionals with their god-given "common sense".
Amazing....

[Wickerman]

Did anyone say he was the 'first person' to enter the crime scene?

Dr Phillips was clearly the first person into the room, followed by Supt Arnold and Abberline. There may or may not have been other doctors there at the time. Once they had visually assessed the situation, but not moved anything, I would suggest that they invited the photographer in and, after he had taken his photographs, they commenced the post-mortem examination.

That, at least, is one likely sequence of events. I have no idea on what sound basis you can possibly say it didn't happen like that.

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

[Wickerman]

No, Jon, you are wrong. He was not there describing his examination at all, nor was he telling an entertaining story or writing a novel. He was specifically setting out his conclusion to the coroner of how he believed Mary Kelly died. For that, he did not need to set the scene, describe the colour of walls, identify everyone in the room at the time or discuss the organs, furniture or limbs or anything else irrelevant to that conclusion.

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