Was Mary Kelly killed in daylight hours.?

[Wickerman]

After several days,at least up to the inquest, the police were still undecided as to the time of murder although they were leaning towards around 4:00 am..

Although it is a laborious task, I went through every principal London newspaper from Friday evening to Monday morning.
Yes, there were some opinions which admitted to the authorities being unsure about a time of death.
But, by far the most popular story was Maxwell's, and the most likely time of death published over that weekend was after 9:00 am in the morning.
I'm not saying this was the view of the police, that is not specifically stated, it was just what the press were saying.
So, the reading public were more likely to have accepted the murder of Kelly as a late morning murder, in daylight.

[David Orsam]

Ok, so why don't you provide a press quote where activities which took place in the room are described, because to be honest, none come to mind.

If I provided a press quote about the activities in the room I would be hypocritical. My point is that the press didn't know for sure what happened in the room.

That is why some newspapers say there were two examinations while others only refer to a single examination, or post-mortem.

What I rely on is: firstly the evidence of Dr Phillips who referred to entering the room at 1.30pm and who then referred to his 'subsequent examination' suggesting, to me at least, that the examination occurred later in time.

Then I rely on the fact that a photographer certainly attended that afternoon and I would have thought that all photographs would have been taken before anything in the room was touched.

Then I rely on the fact that Dr Bond referred to "the examination" which commenced at 2pm. I strongly suspect that all the doctors commenced a single examination (or post-mortem) at that time.

What I can't say, however, is that I know what happened in that room for a fact but that is what you have now stated twice in this thread, despite your only source being a single unsourced newspaper report.

[Wickerman]

do you think the murder and the mutilation happened at the same time? i tend to believe strangulation played a part in these murders.

"Breathing was interfered with prior to death" - Dr. Phillips on the Chapman case.
Dr Bond described ecchymosis around Kelly's neck, and her right hand fingers clenched (no description of left hand).

[Wickerman]

In fact, the Daily Chronicle (a London newspaper) of 10 November 1888 claimed that Dr Duke, who it described as 'the police surgeon of the H Division' was 'the first medical man to arrive on the spot'.

Just shows how inaccurate information can spread quickly in the press.

Absolutely, which is why collating press coverage on any given subject is required. Not to simply pick a favorite.
Sadly, there are some issues where we have only one source.

[David Orsam]

Absolutely, which is why collating press coverage on any given subject is required. Not to simply pick a favorite.

Yes, and there are plenty of newspapers which only mention a single examination in the room.

So why have you picked, as your favourite, that there were two examinations?

[Darryl Kenyon]

The people who lived, or where in Millers Court on the morning of the murder wouldn't have to know Mary to see either her or the murderer leaving her room. Mary leaves her room early in the morning, goes to The ringers, solicits for a client in the immediate vicinity [ she couldn't have gone too far ], whilst badly hungover, in the cold and rain. Comes back with said client, has to open the door through the window so anyone within the court can see this. Client murders Mary, then as to leave by the door. Three times the door opened and shut yet nobody saw this happening. Also we have the negative evidence of Catherine Pickett who knocked on Mary's door at seven thirty to find no reply. Of course Mary could have been out and about at that time, if not dead, but Catherine Pickett never saw her, and perhaps neither did John Mcarthy whose shop Mary would have to pass to leave the court. If he did see her wouldn't he have gone out, or sent Bowyer out to ask for the rent arrears instead of having to bang on her door later. One last point David says - But for me the key fact is that we are talking about an area of London where members of the public simply did not approach the police or tell them anything. Most people in the streets were probably petty criminals. People in that area didn't come forward at the best of times, and certainly not to confirm something that the police already knew from another witness. I have to disagree, once a reward was offered i think all kinds of people would have come forward with the slightest info if they thought it was relevant.

[David Orsam]

I have to disagree, once a reward was offered i think all kinds of people would have come forward with the slightest info if they thought it was relevant.

What reward do you think they might have thought they would get for coming forward to report a conversation between Mary Kelly and Mrs Maxwell?

I'm not aware that any rewards were being offered just for spotting Mary Kelly doing stuff.

[Michael W Richards]

Why would you expect anyone to see anything of this exchange if it occurred? People speak in the street all the time but I don't see everyone else keeping records of those conversations, mental or otherwise. And why would anyone think they needed to come forward to substantiate "the description" of Mary?

I love the way you have simply ignored the fact that I said we don't know if anyone did come forward to corroborate Maxwell's story and ploughed on regardless.

But for me the key fact is that we are talking about an area of London where members of the public simply did not approach the police or tell them anything. Most people in the streets were probably petty criminals. People in that area didn't come forward at the best of times, and certainly not to confirm something that the police already knew from another witness.

I didn't ignore your suggestion David, I just have no reason to consider it without any indications that happened. There is no report, anywhere, that states someone made a statement that would corroborate Carries. Not in the press, not in reports.

[kjab3112]

The only local Duke/Dukes I can find in the 1890 medical directories is an obstetrician with no mention of forensic interest but is local (entry attached)

[Wickerman]

If I provided a press quote about the activities in the room I would be hypocritical. My point is that the press didn't know for sure what happened in the room.

That is why some newspapers say there were two examinations while others only refer to a single examination, or post-mortem.

What I rely on is: firstly the evidence of Dr Phillips who referred to entering the room at 1.30pm and who then referred to his 'subsequent examination' suggesting, to me at least, that the examination occurred later in time.

Then I rely on the fact that a photographer certainly attended that afternoon and I would have thought that all photographs would have been taken before anything in the room was touched.

Then I rely on the fact that Dr Bond referred to "the examination" which commenced at 2pm. I strongly suspect that all the doctors commenced a single examination (or post-mortem) at that time.

What I can't say, however, is that I know what happened in that room for a fact but that is what you have now stated twice in this thread, despite your only source being a single unsourced newspaper report.

Finally, some clarity. Now I see what you are focused on.

Right, so am I correct in assuming that you accept Dr. Phillips entered the room at 1:30, along with several police officials?
This was reported in the press, and this can be seen from the roof, yes?

After some minutes? past 1:30, the photographer can also be seen to enter.
This was reported in the press.
Dr Bond, Dukes, Gabe, Brown, etc. all arrive and are seen to enter just prior to 2:00 pm?
Is this ok?

So what does it matter what Dr Phillips & the police officials were doing in the room, they may or may not have touched the body and moved furniture - we will never know. This is a preliminary examination, whether anyone touched anything or not.

I wouldn't put a great deal of faith in the photographer being there "to preserve the evidence", this concept was unknown in the late 19th century.
It's natural for us to reach this conclusion today with all our CSI knowledge from TV shows, but we shouldn't assume this was the case back then.

The preservation of evidence is a learned process, it evolves over time. If we do assume this was the intent, we shouldn't assume they had a check list on what not to touch, and what was important.

Why would it matter, for example, if they moved one arm?
Why would it matter if they got their fingerprints over everything?
Why would it matter if they trailed blood all over the floor?
Some things were not important in this period, today everything is important.
So lets not use today's advanced knowledge to critique past activities.

[David Orsam]

I didn't ignore your suggestion David, I just have no reason to consider it without any indications that happened.

But you made a positive assertion that no-one came forward with information to corroborate Mrs Maxwell. You don't actually know if that's the case or not.

There is no report, anywhere, that states someone made a statement that would corroborate Carries. Not in the press, not in reports.

Well that's wrong because there were certainly a number of press reports that Kelly was seen alive by more than one person after 8am but we just don't know how reliable they are, not least because we have no surviving police reports dealing with the issue.

[Michael W Richards]

What reward do you think they might have thought they would get for coming forward to report a conversation between Mary Kelly and Mrs Maxwell?

I'm not aware that any rewards were being offered just for spotting Mary Kelly doing stuff.

They would have publicity, which many "witnesses" in these cases evidently saw, and/or they would assist in the investigation. Since Marys time of death is so unclear, corroborative statements about her being alive and well....(with at least one from someone we can reliably assume actually knew Mary Kelly at all)...in the morning, would be relatively important in the big scheme of things.

[Wickerman]

Yes, and there are plenty of newspapers which only mention a single examination in the room.

So why have you picked, as your favourite, that there were two examinations?

I'm happy you begin with the easy questions.

First, Dr Phillips described the interior of the room with the police, but makes no mention of conducting a post-mortem.

Second, Dr. Bond described the results of a post-mortem, but makes no mention of being in the room at 1:30 with Phillips.

So we have two separate activities, and two separate examinations are described in the press.

[kjab3112]

I've attached a modern map, (Dorset Street is above White's Row near the bus stop)

[Michael W Richards]

Well that's wrong because there were certainly a number of press reports that Kelly was seen alive by more than one person after 8am but we just don't know how reliable they are, not least because we have no surviving police reports dealing with the issue.

Do you have a problem with addressing a comment in context? The above response was supposed to deal with someone specifically corroborating Carries report.

A bunch of people who claim to know Mary Kelly is worth nothing historically, just one who did is relevant.