Why Bond?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Well spotted.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Originally Posted by Simon Wood

Hi David,

Well spotted.

It was more a case of recollection of what I had written, actually, Simon.

And, of course, Sir Charles Warren valued Dr Bond's eminence as an expert so much in January 1888 that he summarily kicked him out of Scotland Yard, and indeed out of the Commissioner's Office, and decimated his medical practice in the process, without any consultation.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

So we only have Anderson's word that Warren held Bond in such high professional esteem.

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

Originally Posted by David Orsam

The issue raised by this thread, Fisherman, is not why another doctor was brought in but why Bond specifically was brought in.

I was answering Steves post (2). I know what the thread is about.

[David Orsam]

Originally Posted by Simon Wood

Hi David,

So we only have Anderson's word that Warren held Bond in such high professional esteem.

You never fail to amuse me Simon. I think the point here is that Warren and Anderson were saying that they held Bond in such high professional esteem after he had withdrawn his complaint against Warren and resigned as the Divisional Surgeon for Scotland Yard.

Perhaps it would be helpful for me to quote the letter written by Sir Charles Warren to Godfrey Lushington at the Home Office on 2 November 1888:

'I have to acquaint you for the information of the Secretary of State that the matter is one which now appears to have been adjusted to the satisfaction of all parties.

The Chief Surgeon informs me that Dr Bond entirely appreciates the difficulties that might arise from his having medical charge of officers in the Commissioner's Office and at the same time the many very important police medical duties which he has to perform in connection with Police Civil and Criminal business, and he naturally prefers to be called in by the Commissioner for Civil and Criminal business in which he is an expert instead of other specialists, and I believe he also fully appreciates the enormous extent of the 'A' Division as it stands without connection with the Commissioners Office.

The Chief Surgeon has accordingly forwarded to me Dr Bond's resignation of the medical charge of Police of the Detective Department, Scotland Yard and other branches of the Commissioner's Office.'

As mentioned in the OP, that letter of resignation was dated 4 October 1888.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

You must be easily amused.

Warren wasn't saying anything of the sort.

It was Anderson telling Bond that Warren held him in such high professional esteem. Hence his request.

A different matter altogether.

The Chief Surgeon to the Metropolitan Police might well have told Anderson a different story.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Originally Posted by Simon Wood

Hi David,

You must be easily amused.

Warren wasn't saying anything of the sort.

It was Anderson telling Bond that Warren held him in such high professional esteem. Hence his request.

A different matter altogether.

The Chief Surgeon to the Metropolitan Police might well have told Anderson a different story.

What do you mean by "Warren wasn't saying anything of the sort"? The sort of what?

Anderson was obviously communicating Warren's views to Bond on 25 Oct. Why would you even suggest that we need to take Anderson's word that these were Warren's views? They obviously were.

And why would the Chief Surgeon to the Metropolitan Police have told Anderson a different story to the one he was telling Warren?

It's all a very amusing insight into the way you think but is there any substance to it?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

So gratifying to know you're still amused.

1. Anything of the sort Anderson was telling Bond.

2. You don't know that Anderson was communicating Warren's view.

3. McKellar may well have looked at the skimpy information upon which Bond was asked to offer his opinion and found it wanting.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Originally Posted by Simon Wood

Hi David,

So gratifying to know you're still amused.

1. Anything of the sort Anderson was telling Bond.

2. You don't know that Anderson was communicating Warren's view.

3. McKellar may well have looked at the skimpy information upon which Bond was asked to offer his opinion and found it wanting.

My response is amusement mixed with confusion.

We have seen that on 2 November Warren referred to Bond as "an expert" to be called in on police criminal (and civil) matters.

A week earlier, Anderson told Bond that he had spoken to Warren "and he has authorised me to ask if you will be good enough to take up the medical evidence given at the several inquests and favour him with your opinion on the matter" adding that Warren had "referred to your eminence as an expert on such cases". Why on earth would Anderson be lying to Bond about what Warren had told him? What possible purpose could it serve? Especially as Anderson was asking Bond to give his opinion to Warren.

So, for me, you really make no sense at all.

And what you think MacKellar has to do with this other than having forwarded Bond's resignation, and possibly being involved as a mediator in the dispute between Warren and Bond, I have no idea.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

I suppose it all depends on what answer Anderson was after.

Take a look at what Bond was given in order to form his opinion. Then compare and contrast it with his professional opinion.

Regards,

Simon