Was Mary Kelly killed in daylight hours.?

[Robert St Devil]

I couldn't see her boiling the milk either robert for the said reasons... but if she had put the milk on to heat before the attack began it could have still been on the fire when the articles of clothing were tossed on the fire.

it was cold, maybe she wanted something to warm herself up
she was nauseous, maybe she wanted something to settle her stomach

[Robert]

I imagine if Mary wanted hot milk, she'd have probably boiled some water and then added the water to the milk. True, it would have meant adulterating the milk even more than it had been before she bought it, but I can't see her boiling a kettle of milk.

[Robert St Devil]

an englishman without a tea kettle... pshaw!
seriously... i dont know what came with the apartment (bed, plates, &c.) and what she owned mysterysinger. still... i know catherine eddowes managed her tea, and she was less off than Mary, so i don't know how much her poverty plays into the mix.

a popular belief is the spout was melted off by her clothes being set on fire in the grate. [if you buy into the subplot that her shoes were drying at the time, then apparently her clothes were made outta some 21st century wicking material bc they are apparently dry enough to set into a blazing inferno of heat.]

an unpopular story is Mary stepped out in the morning for milk. [boiling milk in a closed tea kettle (from what i've read) doesn't whistle. EITHER it's bc the boiled milk builds up a skim on top, which traps in the steam of the milk underneath, creating intense heat for the kettle, scalding the pot, the skim blocking the hole OR the moleculars of milk steam are bigger than water steam and can't escape. short of roasting a tea kettle full of milk over a barbecue pit to see if it could get hot enough to melt off a spout, i'm at an impasse. of course, that's saying it was a tea kettle in the first place. ]

[JadenCollins]

Any number of scenarios can be put forth where the murdered woman in Mary's room is not actually Mary but someone else. But if we employ Occam's Razor the default position would have to be that it was in fact Mary. I have not seen any actual evidence to the contrary so any scenario challenging that has to be taken as pure speculation until proven otherwise.

c.d.

We can't proof both.

[JadenCollins]

Hi all,

I thought that I'd throw in a 'scenario' here.

We know that MJK allowed other prostitutes to stay at Millers Court with her. I believe that it was one of the reasons mentioned by Joe Barnett for why he'd walked out (as well as not being pleased about her being a prostitute herself.) Let's propose that sometime on the morning of 9th November a woman staying with Mary ( let's call her Miss X ) asks Mary if she can have 'use' of the room for an hour or so. Mary goes out, probably for a drink. When she gets back she find that her room has been turned into a slaughterhouse. She staggers back out into the street. Shortly after she bumps into Caroline Maxwell. Maxwell sees that Kelly has thrown up but an in shock Kelly blames the drink. She's in shock, doesn't know what to do so she goes for a drink. Maybe she sought out and found Joe Barnett for advice/help. She tells him that she could never sleep in that room again. Joe tells her that if she goes to the police she'll be asked to identify the body (the thought of doing this horrifies Mary.) Maybe Joe came up with a plan or maybe it was a joint effort: don't go back. From how you've described the body they won't know it's not you. Plus you'll get away with your rent arrears. Move away, change your name, move on.
The police call on Barnett. He identifies the body as Mary.

Just a scenario chaps. Who knows though?

Regards
Herlock

I like this scenario. Who knows maybe that's what happened...


Jaden

[Michael W Richards]

Exactly. Who served MJK in the Ringers, who else was there, who was the man she was seen talking to fifteen minutes later. Who else saw Maxwell and MJK talking. 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 where she lived so people would recognize her . I have often wondered about the plate story, was this checked out ? One last point no one saw a man coming out of 13 Millers court at say ten in the morning. Much easier for him to slip away in the middle of the night unnoticed.

Dorset Street at the time was a densely populated street, and one of the roughest in all of London. There would have been people out on the street before dawn, and that's why I agree with your line of questioning. Also something else to note, Mary spent the entire afternoon in her room with Maria, and Maria had some laundry with her....and we have a heat damaged kettle...as to Roberts inquiry, I think that its very possible Maria did her clients laundry there that afternoon. The pilot coat was probably hung up by the window to dry. The pump just outside in the alcove, the fire to heat the water, the tin basin under her bed. The coin Maria gave Mary before leaving. The fact that a fire was hot enough at one time to melt the spout, repeated water boiling would certainly do that.

Just sayin.

[Robert]

We don't know that there was anything at all in the kettle, do we?

[MysterySinger]

i can ,,kinda,, agree with this statement batman. considering the harsh penalty for stealing clothes in london in 88, its a suggestion that clothes were considered valuables. ones that mary jane could pawn or sell before burning if she was that poverty stricken. im sure a bonnet or hat might bring a price. the faux pas being, that would require common sense, and i dont know how much poor mary kelly had.

regarding the fire... did the fire melt the spout, or was it something boiling inside the kettle that melted off the spout?
i just googled ,,can you boil milk in a water kettle?,,. the answer, so far, has been a resounding hell no! something something about overheating the kettle pot and boils different from water and wouldnt whistle.

Was it a whistling kettle? Could she afford a whistler? Also, had it been a whistler, JTR presumably would have needed to disable it (or leave the whistle off) in case it attracted attention, unless he left before the kettle boiled. Wonder who filled the kettle at the water pump and when.

[Pierre]

Not sure what you are getting at, Phillips made no mention of any other doctors, or the post-mortem, in his testimony at the inquest.

Hi Wickerman,

what I want to point out are just the simple and well historically established facts that:

1. There are newspapers from 10th November reporting that Dukes was the first medical man at Miller´s Court.

So accordring to these sources, Phillips was not first. Or Bond.

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

And according to these we could discuss what is meant by "early" and why that word is used.

3. Dukes and Bond did not testify at the inquest.

This means that we have no inquest testimony from them as to what they saw or when they entered the murder site.

(Bond´s PM source does not contain any comments on the time.)

4. Phillips did. But did not mention Dukes and Bond.

So we can not draw any conclusions about the time they entered from that specific testimony.

Cheers, Pierre

[Pierre]

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:

Wickerman:

Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
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.

David:

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

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.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Darryl.
The police apparently verified Maxwell's account of her movements that morning.
The boiling of water in the kettle , and the condition it was found, would suggest[ as no one mentioned that this was done on a previous day] that the kettle was boiling, and was allowed to disintegrate.
That would suggest to me , that Kelly was in the process of boiling [ maybe making tea, [note being seen returning home with milk.] and was killed whilst this was in process.
This was then almost certain a daylight slaying.
Regards Richard.

[Darryl Kenyon]

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

Exactly. Who served MJK in the Ringers, who else was there, who was the man she was seen talking to fifteen minutes later. Who else saw Maxwell and MJK talking. 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 where she lived so people would recognize her . I have often wondered about the plate story, was this checked out ? One last point no one saw a man coming out of 13 Millers court at say ten in the morning. Much easier for him to slip away in the middle of the night unnoticed.

[Robert St Devil]

MJK wasn't burning her clothes to have a fire so this was done by JtR.

i can ,,kinda,, agree with this statement batman. considering the harsh penalty for stealing clothes in london in 88, its a suggestion that clothes were considered valuables. ones that mary jane could pawn or sell before burning if she was that poverty stricken. im sure a bonnet or hat might bring a price. the faux pas being, that would require common sense, and i dont know how much poor mary kelly had.

regarding the fire... did the fire melt the spout, or was it something boiling inside the kettle that melted off the spout?
i just googled ,,can you boil milk in a water kettle?,,. the answer, so far, has been a resounding hell no! something something about overheating the kettle pot and boils different from water and wouldnt whistle.

[Wickerman]

The Times article I quoted was from Monday 12th, Jon, so does refer to the Saturday autopsy.

Yes Joshua, I understood that. but you seemed to suggest it was a copy of Saturday's report, or did I misunderstand you?

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.

The Star article of the 10th is a copy of the morning article published by the Times, which referred to the Friday examinations.

[Wickerman]

QUOTE=Wickerman;421187



There are newspapers from 10th November reporting that Dukes was the first medical man at Miller´s 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.

Not sure what you are getting at, Phillips made no mention of any other doctors, or the post-mortem, in his testimony at the inquest.