Was Mary Kelly killed in daylight hours.?

[David Orsam]

No-one tells us what happened inside the room, only Phillips at the inquest.

And Bond in his report. As for Phillips, he doesn't refer to any kind of 'preliminary examination' but only refers to a single 'subsequent examination' (i.e. subsequent to his entry at 1.30pm).

[David Orsam]

Don't be petty David, from the roof they could see who enters the room & when.

There's nothing petty about my point, Jon, it goes to the very heart of what you are trying to say. If a reporter on the roof can't see into the room, he can't possibly know what Dr Phillips is doing in there can he? Therefore, he can't know if he is carrying out a 'preliminary examination' or not, can he? So he can only be speculating can't he?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Going back to who saw what. If Mary did bring Jack back to her room at say 9 am. He could have stayed in the shadows in the passageway, but Mary would have had to open the door through the broken window which faced the open court. Meaning anyone in the court would have seen her reentering her room. They did not.

[David Orsam]

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

No, it can't.

For example, was MJK singing? Was there a cry of murder? Some witnesses say they heard it, some say they didn't. There is, therefore, evidence on both sides.

But it doesn't actually matter if the same can be said for all witnesses. It wouldn't affect the point I was making in response to Michael's comment.

[David Orsam]

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

That's a different matter. It's not what you said originally.

There is, indeed, no corroborative evidence - and you can challenge her version, if you like, until the cows come home. But the fact remains that we do have her sworn evidence that she knew Kelly and no actual evidence exists that she did not.

[David Orsam]

This is where she lived so people would recognize her

Let's look at this:

(a) A person lives in an area of London.
(b) Everyone who lives in the same area must recognize that person.

I'm afraid that (b) just does not follow (a). It doesn't follow in 2017 nor did it follow in 1888. It's nothing more than an assumption, not based on any evidence whatsoever, either in general or specifically about Mary Jane Kelly, of whom there is no reason to think that any more than a small number people in the locality even knew who she was.

[David Orsam]

Wasn't it the morning of the Lord Mayors show and a public holiday, surely people would have been milling around a busy thoroughfare like Dorset st.

This is an old canard that finally needs to be put to rest. The Lord Mayor's show didn't begin until the early afternoon (and not in Whitechapel). No-one would have been 'milling around' in Dorset Street, or anywhere else in London for that matter, at any time between 8-9am because of the Lord Mayor's Show. It was only a public holiday for City of London workers, not a national holiday.

[David Orsam]

A classic embarrassing comment from you David where you use your usual strategy to make other posters look stupid, but where you are the one making the only stupid comments:


As everyone else can see, except from you David, Wickerman did not say that. I do think you should apologize to Wickerman for putting words into his mouth.

The question marks are irrelevant. Especially since you finish off with "Seriously?", a confirming word, when there is NOTHING TO CONFIRM.

Oh my dear boy, how charming of you to be following my posts so closely even if you are, as usual, not reading them properly or understanding them.

Leaving aside that I didn't put words into anyone's mouth - something that you would call a lie if I said it about you my dear boy - I think you will find that my question to Wickerman was perfectly reasonable.

He said:

"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 clear implication if this was that, by being on a roof, a pressman could "learn what the doctors are doing in the court". Under questioning from me, however, it transpires that this pressman couldn't see what Dr Phillips was 'doing in the court' so that he could not know if he was carrying out an examination of the body, preliminary or otherwise.

I do hope I have alleviated your concerns my dear boy. If you need me to explain anything else to you that you have failed to understand you only have to ask.

[Michael W Richards]

I don't know where milk came into play here....Mary likely wouldn't have money for milk anyway, but repeated boiling of the kettle over a open flame fire would eventually melt the solder.

[Joshua Rogan]

yeah, ive scalded a few of my wifes pots before. ive also made the accident of covering the pot too, and having the lid be boiled over. but ive never tried in a covered kettle.

It would still be water vapour boiling off the surface of the milk, I think, leaving the solids to burn on the bottom. So much the same, except harder to clean out.

Incidentally, a quick google shows that the first kettle to whistle wasn't patented until 1890, and the familiar spout whistle type not until 1915. So too late for Mary to have one.

[Robert St Devil]

yeah, ive scalded a few of my wifes pots before. ive also made the accident of covering the pot too, and having the lid be boiled over. but ive never tried in a covered kettle.

[Joshua Rogan]

not water joshua. that would just boil.

as for milk, only one way to find that out

I've boiled milk many times and it sure does make a mess in the bottom of the pan. But I still don't think it would get hot enough to melt solder unless all the liquid had boiled away.

[Robert St Devil]

not water joshua. that would just boil.

as for milk, only one way to find that out. i read this by a quora member:

"The solids in cow's milk will congeal at a temperature beneath the boiling point of water. As those calcium wealthy solids precipitate out, they'll settle on the bottom of your kettle. There because of the warmth, they undergo yet every other response and result in a very calcium hydrocarbon sludge a good way to make your kettle unsuitable for another use, as it can be hard to easy. you may heat milk in a kettle, but do not bring it to boiling. you may scald milk (150 deg F) with out a precipitation, and that is extra than sufficient to make your hot chocolate (whatever over approximately 120 is going to burn your mouth"

[Joshua Rogan]

I don't think that boiling a kettle full of water (or milk!) would get it hot enough to melt the spout off, or it would be a pretty useless item. It's when it doesn't have anything in it that it could get hot enough to melt.

[Robert]

Hi Robert

If only we knew the condition of the pilot coat - was it wet from laundering, or still unlaundered and dry? If dry, she'd have put it on if she was cold - some rags could plug the hole in the window.