Double throat cuts

[Wickerman]

Talk about reading things wrong Jon! Did you even read my post that you have just replied to.

I said:

"And a doctor can't make a proper in-situ examination without touching the body, can he? I mean, at the very least he has to check the body temperature."

We've been over this before.
Any doctor, even a regular MD, can attend a crime scene, if only to pronounce life extinct.

David, in order to make that determination the doctor has to touch the body to check for a pulse. I explained this in a previous post.
That, though, is the extent of his contact with the body unless....he is authorized by the Coroner to examine the body, or touch any other part of the body which might compromise evidence.

[David Orsam]

We've been over this before.
Any doctor, even a regular MD, can attend a crime scene, if only to pronounce life extinct.

David, in order to make that determination the doctor has to touch the body to check for a pulse. I explained this in a previous post.
That, though, is the extent of his contact with the body unless....he is authorized by the Coroner to examine the body, or touch any other part of the body which might compromise evidence.

Have you forgotten, Jon, that Dr Phillips already declared life extinct in the case of Kelly by looking through the window? So he didn't need to check for a pulse on this occasion.

But he would have had to touch the body to check the body temperature wouldn't he?

Your comments about "this is the extent of his contact with the body" seem to be from someone making it up as he goes along. If not, where does it come from?

[David Orsam]

Yes, Swanson is pointing out that regardless of the fact Bond was not called by the Coroner, therefore not obligated to pay any fee, he still did so.
He was not compelled to pay Bond the fee as Bond appeared at the behest of the police, so any cost was theirs, not the Coroners.

You are confused. It wasn't Swanson who wrote that it was Hare.

And it shows that the reluctant Coroner, who did not seek Bond's involvement, did end up paying Bond a fee for his attendance at the inquest, thus disproving everything you've said.

[David Orsam]

(Bond took it upon himself to conduct a second P.M.)
"This is the basis of the Coroner's complaint that "the Asistant Comr. sent down Doctor after Doctor without his sanction"; and this claim on the part of the Coroner to control the action of the police in cases of supposed homicide raises a question of such great practical importance that I think an authoritative decision upon it should be obtained.
No one is more ready than I am to spare the susceptibilities (or even to humour the vanity) of any official, but my estimate of the position and duty of the Commissioner of Police is wholly inconsistent with the idea that he must obtain the sanction of the Coroner before taking steps imperatively necessary for the investigation of a crime."

This is a power struggle, pure and simple, nothing more.

It's not a power struggle at all. It goes no wider than the issue of whether the police have a right to instruct additional medical officers if they feel the need to do so in a murder investigation. That's all. Baxter was annoyed by it whereas Anderson thought he should be able to do it. That was the only issue being discussed.

The central point for our purposes is that the debate they were having has nothing to do with normal procedure in a suspected murder case whereby a Coroner has the power to direct the medical officer who carried out the in situ examination to conduct a post-mortem examination, because that was governed under law by the Coroner's Act and it was clearly and undoubtedly the responsibility of the Coroner.

[Wickerman]

Have you forgotten, Jon, that Dr Phillips already declared life extinct in the case of Kelly by looking through the window? So he didn't need to check for a pulse on this occasion.

Good grief David, obviously there's no need to check for a pulse at Millers Court.
Its replies like this that suggest to me you are just playing games here.

But he would have had to touch the body to check the body temperature wouldn't he?

In this case that would be pointless.
The conventional way of obtaining a 'body temperature' for a body mutilated to this extent was to drill into the skull and get the temp. of the brain.

Your comments about "this is the extent of his contact with the body" seem to be from someone making it up as he goes along. If not, where does it come from?

What ever you say.

[Wickerman]

You are confused. It wasn't Swanson who wrote that it was Hare.

And it shows that the reluctant Coroner, who did not seek Bond's involvement, did end up paying Bond a fee for his attendance at the inquest, thus disproving everything you've said.

How on earth do you deduce that?

I wrote:
Yes, Swanson is pointing out that regardless of the fact Bond was not called by the Coroner, therefore not obligated to pay any fee, he still did so.

Yes, I had the name wrong. What happened is exactly how we read the report, he still paid the fee, though he didn't have to.

[Wickerman]

The central point for our purposes is that the debate they were having has nothing to do with normal procedure in a suspected murder case whereby a Coroner has the power to direct the medical officer who carried out the in situ examination to conduct a post-mortem examination, because that was governed under law by the Coroner's Act and it was clearly and undoubtedly the responsibility of the Coroner.

It's a little more detailed than that.
S 21 (1).
That medical practitioner must be legally qualified, and that it is the Coroner who summons a legally qualified medical practitioner to attend the body, and in S 21 (2), to conduct a P.M.

And in S 22 (1) the Coroner shall not pay for a P.M. conducted without his consent.

That is the permission we have been talking about, and which was mentioned by the press.

The Coroner makes no provision for the payment of a fee for an examination conducted at the crime scene.

[David Orsam]

Good grief David, obviously there's no need to check for a pulse at Millers Court.
Its replies like this that suggest to me you are just playing games here.

I have no idea why you say that Jon. You were the one who raised the issue of a checking of pulse. For what purpose I cannot imagine. I was simply making the point that this did not apply at Millers Court.

[David Orsam]

In this case that would be pointless.
The conventional way of obtaining a 'body temperature' for a body mutilated to this extent was to drill into the skull and get the temp. of the brain.

Another surreal response. It's right there in black and white Jon.

"The body was comparatively cold at 2 o'clock".

You're not saying that Dr Bond drilled a hole into Kelly's skull at 2pm to get the temperature of the brain are you?

[David Orsam]

What ever you say.

I'm going to take that as an admission that there was no reason why a doctor would have to "look but not touch" during an in situ examination.

[David Orsam]

I wrote:
Yes, Swanson is pointing out that regardless of the fact Bond was not called by the Coroner, therefore not obligated to pay any fee, he still did so.

Yes, I had the name wrong. What happened is exactly how we read the report, he still paid the fee, though he didn't have to.

But that's the whole point. The Coroner didn't WANT to be paying two sets of fees to two sets of medical witnesses. He he was complaining to the police that they were involving too many doctors!

[David Orsam]

How on earth do you deduce that?

You said:

"The coroner is responsible for the fees of all witnesses whom he calls to appear at the inquest.
If he doesn't call the doctor, then he pays no fee. So no, that is not the concern, the coroner is entirely in control of his fees."

The Rainham Mystery provides an example where the Coroner was not "entirely in control" of his fees. He ended up paying two doctors for attending at the inquest when he would obviously have preferred to pay only one. This is the type of thing that is causing the problem raised by Baxter.

[David Orsam]

It's a little more detailed than that.
S 21 (1).
That medical practitioner must be legally qualified, and that it is the Coroner who summons a legally qualified medical practitioner to attend the body, and in S 21 (2), to conduct a P.M.

No, you are reading that wrong. The summons referred to in S.21(1) is to attend at the inquest. It doesn't say "to attend the body". S.21(2) gives the Coroner the right to direct the medical witness to conduct a post-mortem.

In practice, with a suspected homicide, what happened, as we know from the Ripper murders, is that it was the police who would normally ask either the doctor nearest to the scene of the crime, or the divisional surgeon, to attend the body. That doctor would then normally be summoned to attend as a witness and (if required by the coroner) instructed to conduct a post-mortem. Or the coroner, if he wished, could summon another doctor and instruct that other doctor to conduct the post-mortem.

And in S 22 (1) the Coroner shall not pay for a P.M. conducted without his consent.

Well exactly. So that's why we didn't need the MEPO documents that you referred to earlier to know that the doctor would always wait for authorisation from the Coroner before starting a post-mortem. If he didn't wait for it, he didn't get paid! It's as simple as that.

That is the permission we have been talking about, and which was mentioned by the press.

You are thinking of the Daily Chronicle report:

"Half an hour later he [Phillips] was joined by Dr. Bond, the Chief Surgeon of the Metropolitan Police, and together they commenced a post-mortem examination on the spot as soon as the requisite authority had been obtained.”

But, to the extent that the "requisite authority" was a reference to the coroner, this report was wrong wasn't it? We know that firstly because Swanson states in respect of Dr Bond's examination that the Coroner's consent "was not asked for or necessary". Secondly because the coroner was hardly likely to direct that two PMs be conducted. Thirdly, although not entirely conclusive, we may add that the coroner didn't become involved until jurisdiction was fixed which didn't happen until the coroner's officer decided which mortuary to take the body to. You've mentioned that the coroner's officer turned up at 4pm so it seems unlikely to me that anyone knew which coroner to ask at 2pm. And of course I don't accept that PM was conducted on the Friday so no consent from a coroner was needed for the (in situ) examination that was conducted.

The Coroner makes no provision for the payment of a fee for an examination conducted at the crime scene.

No, I haven't said there was such a fee. In the absence of a PM, the fee was to attend to give evidence at the inquest.

[Joshua Rogan]

Dr Llewellyn, according to the Morning Advertiser 1st Sept, after having examined Polly Nichol's body in Buck's Row "...made a second examination of the body in the mortuary, and on that based his conclusion, but will make no formal post mortem examination until he receives the coroner's orders."

[David Orsam]

Yes, and it was perfectly possible for a doctor to conduct a post-mortem examination without the permission of the coroner.

The 1887 Act actually envisages this for it says (at 22(1)):

"Any fee or remuneration shall not be paid to a medical practitioner for the performance of a post-mortem examination instituted without the previous direction of the coroner."

So the doctor could conduct the PM, he just wouldn't get paid if he did it before obtaining the coroner's consent!