Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by etenguy 2 hours ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Varqm 2 hours ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Wickerman 3 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Henry Flower 3 hours ago.
General Victim Discussion: What does this picture remind you of? - by Henry Flower 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - (45 posts)
General Letters or Communications: The GOGMAGOG-letter - (5 posts)
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere a witness to the killer - (4 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Why Mary had to die. - (4 posts)
General Victim Discussion: What does this picture remind you of? - (3 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Strictly personal ID - (3 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Victims > Mary Ann Nichols

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #211  
Old 07-17-2017, 01:45 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
You failed to detail it out clearly.
I thought I was very clear. The short point is that while Dr Bond refers in his 10 November report to an "examination" at 2pm in which he discovered rigor mortis had set in, it's not entirely clear if he is talking here about the post-mortem examination as opposed to the standard in situ examination.

This is reinforced by his 16 November "report" in which he has a separate heading for "Postmortem examination" which follows the details of the in situ examination.

Rather than jump all over this Jon, just consider what I'm saying. I'm not saying it's conclusive but it is, I think, a credible argument.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 07-17-2017, 01:50 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Like I said before, he was able to determine the cause of death in his cursory examination, after entering the room.
He might have been able to do this but you don't know that this is what actually happened. He didn't use the expression "cursory examination" so you are simply fabricating the evidence once again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
His reply to the Coroner would have been different if the eventual post-mortem had turned up another cause.
It's just that simple.
But this doesn't help us as to whether Phillips determined the cause of death virtually as soon as he entered the room at 1.30pm or during the examination at 2pm.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 07-17-2017, 03:19 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Bearing in mind the meaning of the word "subsequent" I would have thought that yours is the least likely explanation. If it was only "a minute or two", there was no need to even use the word. That's why I personally concluded that the examination he was referring to was probably at 2pm.
You'll also notice he says:
"I am sure the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death...."

Ok, so she is killed at the far side of the bed, and rather than immediately pull her body towards him to begin the mutilations, you would have him wait for 30 minutes?, before he pulled her towards himself?
"Subsequent" = "about 30 minutes", right?

You'll excuse me if I disagree.


Quote:
I have no idea why we are still discussing it.

(I think it's because you can't accept that I could possibly be right.)
You'll excuse me if I disagree.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 07-17-2017, 03:24 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
You'll also notice he says:
"I am sure the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death...."

Ok, so she is killed at the far side of the bed, and rather than immediately pull her body towards him to begin the mutilations, you would have him wait for 30 minutes?, before he pulled her towards himself?
"Subsequent" = "about 30 minutes", right?

You'll excuse me if I disagree.
You can disagree - of course you can - but I'm suggesting he has to wait 30 minutes because the photographer is taking his photographs. No doubt the police officers in the room also wanted (and needed) to look at the body before they left the doctors to do their work. I just happen to think he waited until he was ready (with the other doctors) to commence the examination rather than jump in and have a snoop around.

p.s. "rather than immediately pull her body towards him to begin the mutilations" - Freudian slip I assume?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 07-17-2017, 03:30 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I thought I was very clear. The short point is that while Dr Bond refers in his 10 November report to an "examination" at 2pm in which he discovered rigor mortis had set in, it's not entirely clear if he is talking here about the post-mortem examination as opposed to the standard in situ examination.
I have not heard anyone else be confused by this.
The examination he is referring to is his own at 2 pm.

Quote:
This is reinforced by his 16 November "report" in which he has a separate heading for "Postmortem examination" which follows the details of the in situ examination.

Rather than jump all over this Jon, just consider what I'm saying. I'm not saying it's conclusive but it is, I think, a credible argument.
It strikes me you have a habit of seeing what is not there.

Bond made a preliminary examination, then conducted his own post-mortem.
This is what Phillips did with McKenzie, first the preliminary examination, followed by his post-mortem.
You have no basis for your argument.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 07-17-2017, 03:46 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
You can disagree - of course you can - but I'm suggesting he has to wait 30 minutes because the photographer is taking his photographs.
Don't you think you should find out how many photographs were taken inside, and how long that might take before you try to use the required time to support an argument?
And this is the same guy who is presuming to teach me something?

That aside, how long would it take for him to look closer at the wounds, and perhaps pull the bed away from the wall?
Two minutes, three?

Quote:
No doubt the police officers in the room also wanted (and needed) to look at the body before they left the doctors to do their work. I just happen to think he waited until he was ready (with the other doctors) to commence the examination rather than jump in and have a snoop around.

p.s. "rather than immediately pull her body towards him to begin the mutilations" - Freudian slip I assume?
What does subsequent mean here, expressed as a time-line?
"I am sure the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death...."

You feel quite sure what "subsequent" meant in the first usage, so what about the second?
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 07-17-2017, 06:47 PM
Robert St Devil Robert St Devil is online now
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 717
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
I think the post was saying roughly that the photographer left around 4-4:30pm when the light (and, indeed, the body) started to go. This was in a room with north facing windows in a north facing yard in November, so the light was never going to be great. But if he turned up and started snapping away at 1:30pm, that's about three hours of daylight, so roughly one photo every half hour.
i remember the neighbor saying that she looked in on the ghastly sight when she went for water, so the curtains must have been opened by then. Possibly ,more light, for the photographer?
__________________
there,s nothing new, only the unexplored
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 07-18-2017, 12:46 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
I have not heard anyone else be confused by this.
The examination he is referring to is his own at 2 pm.
What does "anyone else" have to do with this?

Baldly stating that he is referring to the 2pm examination and the reason for this is because you say so isn't helping me at all.

Why does he insert the heading "Postmortem examination" into his "report" a quarter of the way into the "report" rather than at the top? That's the question that hasn't been answered.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 07-18-2017, 12:49 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
It strikes me you have a habit of seeing what is not there.

Bond made a preliminary examination, then conducted his own post-mortem.
This is what Phillips did with McKenzie, first the preliminary examination, followed by his post-mortem.
You have no basis for your argument.
It strikes me that you have a habit of not being able to properly challenge any of your own assumptions.

What Phillips did with McKenzie is conduct a preliminary examination in situ and then a post-mortem at the mortuary, as reflected in his notes.

My question to you is why did Bond not do exactly the same thing? Where is the evidence to suggest he did anything different?

I appreciate that you've always believed that the report reflects the Friday examination but I'm challenging that belief and want to know the basis of it.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 07-18-2017, 12:56 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Don't you think you should find out how many photographs were taken inside, and how long that might take before you try to use the required time to support an argument?
Don't be silly Jon, how can I possibly do that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
That aside, how long would it take for him to look closer at the wounds, and perhaps pull the bed away from the wall?
Two minutes, three?
What I am saying is not so much that he didn't have sufficient time but that he wouldn't have done anything in a rush, bearing in mind that he had already established Kelly was dead. I'm suggesting he would have waited for the photographs to be taken, cleared the room of police and commenced a proper examination, along with the other doctors, with notes being taken, rather than just leaping in, moving things around and snooping about for a bit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
What does subsequent mean here, expressed as a time-line?
"I am sure the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death...."

You feel quite sure what "subsequent" meant in the first usage, so what about the second?
It means after the injury Jon. Not at the same time. Just like the examination was conducted after he entered the room, not at the time he entered the room.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.