Was Dr. Phillips flustered by it all?

[lynn cates]

Hello Caroline.

"Slitting an unfortunate's throat in a dingy backyard in the early hours, then cutting out her uterus before making off with it sounds just like the work of a pretty deranged fantasist."

Pretty much agree.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

There's a surprise, Lynn.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

I think one benefit accruing to those who are a long time on the boards is that such can usually guess the other person's reply.

Cheers.
LC

[SirJohnFalstaff]

This part of Wikipedia on GBP (MJK inquest) caught my attention:
"Consequently, the coroner had not complied with the legal requisite that the length, breadth and depths of all wounds to the deceased must be recorded and, with conflicting evidence having been given to the inquest, the time of death had not been established. Phillips had conferred in private with the coroner before the hearing opened, something he had wanted to do at a previous inquest but had been refused."

The quote refers to Colin Kendell's book. I know it doesn't have a good reputation, but is there an ounce of truth there, or is it pure speculation?

[Bridewell]

Originally Posted by SirJohnFalstaff

This part of Wikipedia on GBP (MJK inquest) caught my attention:
"Consequently, the coroner had not complied with the legal requisite that the length, breadth and depths of all wounds to the deceased must be recorded and, with conflicting evidence having been given to the inquest, the time of death had not been established. Phillips had conferred in private with the coroner before the hearing opened, something he had wanted to do at a previous inquest but had been refused."

The quote refers to Colin Kendell's book. I know it doesn't have a good reputation, but is there an ounce of truth there, or is it pure speculation?

I guess that depends on what Kendell's source was.

[Michael W Richards]

Originally Posted by SirJohnFalstaff

This part of Wikipedia on GBP (MJK inquest) caught my attention:
"Consequently, the coroner had not complied with the legal requisite that the length, breadth and depths of all wounds to the deceased must be recorded and, with conflicting evidence having been given to the inquest, the time of death had not been established. Phillips had conferred in private with the coroner before the hearing opened, something he had wanted to do at a previous inquest but had been refused."

The quote refers to Colin Kendell's book. I know it doesn't have a good reputation, but is there an ounce of truth there, or is it pure speculation?

I think the part I accentuated above is important when assessing which medical opinions should hold more weight. The autopsy notes reveal most of if not all of that information, but they do not contain images, photographs, they do not reflect the complete experience of the physician during the examination. The visual aspects.

This is why Phillips in my opinion is a very relevant factor when assembling a "Canonical Group". He saw 4 of the five women in death. The ONLY physician who did.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

I should have been more accurate in my questioning.

What interest me is the possibility that Philips did talk to MacDonald before, and they came to an agreement.

[c.d.]

Originally Posted by Michael W Richards

I think the part I accentuated above is important when assessing which medical opinions should hold more weight. The autopsy notes reveal most of if not all of that information, but they do not contain images, photographs, they do not reflect the complete experience of the physician during the examination. The visual aspects.

This is why Phillips in my opinion is a very relevant factor when assembling a "Canonical Group". He saw 4 of the five women in death. The ONLY physician who did.

Hello Michael,

Do we know anything about Phillips beyond his seeing four of the women which would qualify him to give an expert opinion?

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Originally Posted by c.d.

Hello Michael,

Do we know anything about Phillips beyond his seeing four of the women which would qualify him to give an expert opinion?

c.d.

We know he was appointed to the Royal College of Surgeons in 1861, we know that he was asked to perform the autopsy on Alice Mackenzie..and Francis Coles, we know that he was involved in investigating the Pinchin Street murder, we know that his obit described him as a leading Police surgeon....point being cd, that we have no blemishes that might put his expertise in question. And he didnt think all 4 of the women he saw were killed by the same hand, or knife.

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

I am not questioning his credentials but rather was he qualified as an expert in knife wounds. We also don't know the details at how he arrived at his conclusions. So rather than take his opinion as the word of God I am more inclined to take it with a grain of salt. You of course are free to do otherwise.

c.d.