Was Mary Kelly killed in daylight hours.?

[Abby Normal]

can anyone please explain what the revalance of this current debate is about? what does it matter if there was a preliminary/one/two/examinations?

am I missing something? whats the point?

sorry, in advance-I can be a little obtuse sometimes.

[Wickerman]

That's an extraordinary statement Jon. Because the press got one thing right we shouldn't question anything else they say about the events of that day?

The press were able to identify a photographer, and describe when he arrived and when he left, yet you think they were wrong when they described two separate examinations conducted by the doctors in that room, while the photographer waited outside.

I thought we had agreed that the press get some things right and some things wrong.

Yes, and the reason we know they do get things wrong is, we have contrary evidence on that specific point.
In this case you have no evidence of only one examination, and no evidence the photographer entered before anything was moved.
Your argument is, as you admitted, based purely on what 'you' think is common sense.
Yet, the common sense you refer to is only true today because we have forensics to apply to every type of evidence. Abberline was not troubled by such technicalities in 1888.
The only forensic aids available were those two bloodhounds, that were never used, plus the ability to identify boot prints.
Now, I ask again, what harm would moving an arm, or a chair have done to the investigation?

The point I have been repeatedly making to you is that the press did not have first hand knowledge of what happened inside the room.

You don't know that.
The culture among the City police, of whom Dr Brown was attached was totally different. The press had a good rapport with anyone connected to the City authorities, not so with the Met. or Scotland Yard. Plus, the photographer may not have been sworn to secrecy over what he saw, or what he overheard.
You're guessing.

That is why we can question it. Especially as, according to you - if I understand you correctly - the transmission of this information was via one of the residents to the press. If that's not right, tell me how the press knew?

I don't recall mentioning a resident as a source for the examinations.

As I have been saying since the start, Dr Phillips makes no reference to a preliminary examination in his testimony. He said he arrived at 1.30pm and made a 'subsequent examination". I've commented that it would have been sensible to let the photographer to take his snaps before commencing an examination. I also think that Phillips would have waited until Dr Bond was ready to commence the examination before starting on it. I think there would have been a single post-mortem examination. I don't even know what you mean by 'preliminary examination.'

Yes David, and Phillips described his "subsequent examination":

"...and from my subsequent examination I am sure the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death from that side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition, the large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the paliasse, pillow, sheet, at that top corner nearest the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery which was the immediate cause of her death was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head & neck in the top right hand corner."

He makes no mention of conducting a post-mortem, or the presence of any of his peers, or the movement of organs, furniture, limbs, etc.
Nothing described above would pass for a description of a post-mortem.
Everything he described was visual.

[Wickerman]

Of course I'm not Jon. Did you not read the extract from the Daily Telegraph of 10 November 1888 that I posted a little earlier?

"Before anything was disturbed a photograph was taken of the interior of the room."

How would they know that?

[Wickerman]

I used that quote David because that's what I believe Jon is interpreting as an "examination", the quote however clearly uses the term to identify what was in effect a visual inspection, as you said.

Phillips simply surveyed the scene before his "examination" which was conducted with Bond...that's the crux. I was being supportive of your position. There was not 2 pm's or anything like that.

Exactly Michael.
This is what Phillips said at the inquest.
He does not say if he moved anything, so that much we will never know, but the photographer was allowed to enter 'after' this preliminary examination by Phillips, according to the press.
An outsider, like a photographer, is never going to be the first person to enter a crime scene.

[Wickerman]

can anyone please explain what the revalance of this current debate is about? what does it matter if there was a preliminary/one/two/examinations?

am I missing something? whats the point?

sorry, in advance-I can be a little obtuse sometimes.

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

[David Orsam]

can anyone please explain what the revalance of this current debate is about? what does it matter if there was a preliminary/one/two/examinations?

am I missing something? whats the point?

sorry, in advance-I can be a little obtuse sometimes.

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.

[David Orsam]

How would they know that?

Good to see that you're not missing the point here at all Jon.

Oh no, it's the other way round.

I'm not saying that Telegraph was right (or wrong).

You accused me of making an unhistorical point in suggesting that the police might have wanted to photograph an undisturbed crime scene.

But it clearly was not unhistorical because the Daily Telegraph was suggesting exactly the same thing.

If the idea occurred to the Telegraph reporter it could just as easily have occurred to the police, no?

[David Orsam]

The press were able to identify a photographer, and describe when he arrived and when he left, yet you think they were wrong when they described two separate examinations conducted by the doctors in that room, while the photographer waited outside.

Well it seems to me that there are various different accounts of when the photographer arrived and left but that's not even the point.

The point is that the photographer's arrival and departure was visible to everyone in Dorset Street.

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.

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.

So we don't really have any reliable information about what went on that room between 1.30 and 2pm do we?

[David Orsam]

while the photographer waited outside.

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.

[David Orsam]

Yes, and the reason we know they do get things wrong is, we have contrary evidence on that specific point.

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".

[David Orsam]

In this case you have no evidence of only one examination

Erm, I think you'll find that I have as much evidence of one examination as you have of two, i.e. from the newspapers. You already quoted yourself from the Morning Advertiser which refers to Bond, Phillips, and two or three other surgeons making one examination which we know for a fact from Bond was the post-mortem examination.

Ironically the newspaper refers to THIS examination - the post-mortem examination - as a 'preliminary examination'.

It just shows how easy it is for language to confuse.

But clearly if THAT was a 'preliminary examination' in the mind of the Morning Advertiser then Phillips had not done one prior to that.

[David Orsam]

Your argument is, as you admitted, based purely on what 'you' think is common sense.
Yet, the common sense you refer to is only true today because we have forensics to apply to every type of evidence. Abberline was not troubled by such technicalities in 1888.
The only forensic aids available were those two bloodhounds, that were never used, plus the ability to identify boot prints.
Now, I ask again, what harm would moving an arm, or a chair have done to the investigation?

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?

[David Orsam]

You don't know that.
The culture among the City police, of whom Dr Brown was attached was totally different. The press had a good rapport with anyone connected to the City authorities, not so with the Met. or Scotland Yard. Plus, the photographer may not have been sworn to secrecy over what he saw, or what he overheard.
You're guessing.

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.

[David Orsam]

I don't recall mentioning a resident as a source for the examinations.

I can happily refresh your memory. Post #64:

"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."

That was in direct response to me saying:

"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."

[Wickerman]

Good to see that you're not missing the point here at all Jon.

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

I'm not saying that Telegraph was right (or wrong).

You accused me of making an unhistorical point in suggesting that the police might have wanted to photograph an undisturbed crime scene.

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.

But it clearly was not unhistorical because the Daily Telegraph was suggesting exactly the same thing.

If the idea occurred to the Telegraph reporter it could just as easily have occurred to the police, no?

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.