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:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Robert St Devil 31 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by Graham 1 hour and 11 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 1 hour and 20 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Michael W Richards 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (19 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (4 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - (1 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - (1 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 > Doctors and Coroners

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 06-23-2017, 05:42 AM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by c.d. View Post
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.
Ive hesitated to address this post cd because it would seem obvious that many of the crimes he would have investigated, and many of the wounds he inspected over his illustrious career, were knife based. He is a qualified and recognized surgeon, and one that I have been unable to find any data to suggest he should not have been. Hence, his opinion is weighty and relevant, particularly as I said, since he saw 4 of 5 canonicals in death personally.

Direct observation of wounds, for me, supersedes reports of that information.
__________________
Michael Richards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-25-2017, 08:15 AM
c.d. c.d. is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,448
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
Ive hesitated to address this post cd because it would seem obvious that many of the crimes he would have investigated, and many of the wounds he inspected over his illustrious career, were knife based. He is a qualified and recognized surgeon, and one that I have been unable to find any data to suggest he should not have been. Hence, his opinion is weighty and relevant, particularly as I said, since he saw 4 of 5 canonicals in death personally.

Direct observation of wounds, for me, supersedes reports of that information.
Hello Michael,

I agree that he was a qualified surgeon and that his opinion is weighty and relevant. My objection is to his opinion being considered an expert opinion as compared to somebody today using computer enhanced imagery to compare the wounds. In addition, we don't have the details of how he arrived at his conclusion which might indicate some flaw or error in his analysis. So we are agreeing that he was qualified to give his opinion but disagreeing as to how much weight it should be given.

c.d.

P.S. It is commonplace today in trials for both sides to have expert witnesses testify both of whom have incredibly impressive credentials and who completely disagree with one another.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-06-2017, 10:18 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,109
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
Ive hesitated to address this post cd because it would seem obvious that many of the crimes he would have investigated, and many of the wounds he inspected over his illustrious career, were knife based. He is a qualified and recognized surgeon, and one that I have been unable to find any data to suggest he should not have been. Hence, his opinion is weighty and relevant, particularly as I said, since he saw 4 of 5 canonicals in death personally.

Direct observation of wounds, for me, supersedes reports of that information.
"Illustrious career"? Can you be more specific.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-07-2017, 02:07 PM
kjab3112 kjab3112 is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: London
Posts: 141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by c.d. View Post
Hello Michael,

I agree that he was a qualified surgeon and that his opinion is weighty and relevant. My objection is to his opinion being considered an expert opinion as compared to somebody today using computer enhanced imagery to compare the wounds. In addition, we don't have the details of how he arrived at his conclusion which might indicate some flaw or error in his analysis. So we are agreeing that he was qualified to give his opinion but disagreeing as to how much weight it should be given.

c.d.

P.S. It is commonplace today in trials for both sides to have expert witnesses testify both of whom have incredibly impressive credentials and who completely disagree with one another.
Phillips was a near 20 year experienced police surgeon. One of his first cases involved a child (think aged 7) who had a vaginal rupture and gonorrhoea due to sexual abuse/attack. Hardly a man inexperienced with the horror of East London crime

Paul
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-07-2017, 02:09 PM
kjab3112 kjab3112 is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: London
Posts: 141
Default

PS forgot to mention his seeming use of and understanding of the limitations of post death cooling. Bond appears to rely on the less reliable science of rigor mortis

Paul
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-07-2017, 10:21 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,109
Default

As I've noted before, I don't think there are any completely reliable means for determining time of death: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...mortis&f=false

And Dr Biggs points out that the Forensic Science Regulator advises that modern pathologists shouldn't even attempt it.

On that basis, whatever Dr Phillips, or any of the other Victorian doctors say about time of death issues, should be treated with extreme caution.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-07-2017, 10:46 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,173
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
As I've noted before, I don't think there are any completely reliable means for determining time of death: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...mortis&f=false

And Dr Biggs points out that the Forensic Science Regulator advises that modern pathologists shouldn't even attempt it.

On that basis, whatever Dr Phillips, or any of the other Victorian doctors say about time of death issues, should be treated with extreme caution.
I've Cross examined numerous forensic medical examiners, most will only give you a range of maybe four hours.

Now I've heard evidence that tests gave been carried out, at universities, by getting medicos to give times of death on bodies where the time is actually known and can be out by hours.

So yes I shake my head when I see someone here say, but Dr X said she'd been dead Y hours.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-07-2017, 11:28 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,109
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
I've Cross examined numerous forensic medical examiners, most will only give you a range of maybe four hours.

Now I've heard evidence that tests gave been carried out, at universities, by getting medicos to give times of death on bodies where the time is actually known and can be out by hours.

So yes I shake my head when I see someone here say, but Dr X said she'd been dead Y hours.
Thanks for this GUT. It clearly 're-emphasises the point that even modern forensic experts cannot ascertain TOD with any degree of accuracy. I think, therefore, that any estimates given by the Victorian doctors should be taken with a pinch of salt.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-08-2017, 04:34 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,911
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Thanks for this GUT. It clearly 're-emphasises the point that even modern forensic experts cannot ascertain TOD with any degree of accuracy. I think, therefore, that any estimates given by the Victorian doctors should be taken with a pinch of salt.
The issue of Dr. Phillips overestimating Chapman's time of death stands as a contemporary example of the unreliability of the current methods.
The police are said to have grilled Richardson over what time he came to the yard that morning, an indication that the preference of the authorities was to accept professional opinion as opposed to that of a layperson.

I think this incident is what caused the police to equally pursue two suspects (Blotchy & Astrachan) in the Kelly case. They much preferred to take Dr. Bond's opinion, but dare not risk ignoring the statement by Hutchinson.
Which gave rise to the perception by some (the Star?), that Hutchinson's claim had somehow been 'discredited'. Nothing of the sort, they simply could not put all their eggs in one basket.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-13-2017, 09:29 AM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,472
Default

I've just noticed this interesting snippet in the Star 15th Sept;

"Mr. Phillips personally has hitherto withheld information from reporters upon conscientious grounds, and Inspector Abberline himself says that the surgeon has not told him what portions of the body were missing."

I can understand his reluctance to give details of the mutilations in court in front of the press and public,, but to not even inform the police...?

Assuming the story is true, was Phillips really that secretive, or was this Abberline's way of fobbing off the press?
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 03:20 PM.


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