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:
Non-Fiction: The "Oh look what is cheap on Kindle" thread... - by Simon Webb 3 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by jerryd 5 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 13 minutes ago.
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - by S.Brett 16 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: How about the "Bad Cop" ??? - by jerryd 1 hour and 18 minutes ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by Joshua Rogan 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Shades of Whitechapel: Caught!? Long Island Serial Killer suspect - (16 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (3 posts)
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - (3 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (3 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - (2 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: How about the "Bad Cop" ??? - (2 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
  #381  
Old 07-20-2017, 02:06 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,888
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post

I literally have no idea why you have posted this again.

It's also very odd that you can't seem to accept that a doctor has to touch the body to check the temperature during an in-situ examination.
I have posted it precisely because you cannot seem to read that I knew pages ago that a doctor will touch the body to pronounce life extinct.
Now, are you going to accuse me again of not accepting it!


Quote:
But I think we've sorted it out now. You didn't mean to say that Dr Phillips needed permission to touch the body. So that's that.
Moving on then?
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #382  
Old 07-20-2017, 02:08 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,888
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
So where in that Daily News report does it say that the post-mortem was limited to the investigation of the removed organs? I can't see it anywhere.
In part because what is being described is not the whole scope of a conventional P.M., and that will take place the next day.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #383  
Old 07-20-2017, 02:11 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Well, there are several. Which include the phone message on 9.11.88, which indicated Bond was "engaged in making his examination".
No, that's no good because it works for me too. I agree that there was an examination conducted at 2pm but not a PM examination. It was, I am suggesting, a preliminary in situ examination. So the telephone message is consistent with that. And you will note that the telephone message does NOT say that Bond was engaged in making a Post Mortem examination. The fact that Bond didn't write his report on 9 November, despite the apparent urgency, indicates that his PM had not, in fact, been conducted at that stage.

Your best point, if you don't mind me saying so, is that Bond refers in his 10 November report to the fact that HE had made a Post Mortem Examination (as opposed to him and Phillips doing it jointly). I regard that as probably being loose wording on his part but it's nevertheless the only real point I see that supports your newspaper articles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
The first three pages of notes are not entitled "examination", just "position of body", because that was not his examination.

It is the last four pages which are entitled "Postmortem Examination", which is what Bond was doing on that Friday. The phone message confirms that.
I don't even understand the logic behind that conclusion. The telephone message says that he was conducting an "examination" (not post-mortem examination). The first three pages of his notes refer to an "examination" (not a post-mortem examination). So how the telephone message "confirms" that Bond was conducting a "Postmortem Examination" on the Friday I have no idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
A formal post-mortem for the inquest is a very methodical and sequential examination. Two people do not investigate the body in parallel as there is good reason to complete one investigation before commencing on another. Bond would only be an observer.
I disagree that two people cannot conduct a post-mortem. Further, it seems very unusual for there to be TWO post-mortems whereby the first would inevitably duplicate the work of the second. Aside from the mutilations, I don't suppose Phillips had ever been in a situation where he was conducting a PM examination on a body which had already been opened up for a PM examination the previous day.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #384  
Old 07-20-2017, 02:21 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
I have posted it precisely because you cannot seem to read that I knew pages ago that a doctor will touch the body to pronounce life extinct.
Now, are you going to accuse me again of not accepting it!
You have misunderstood entirely.

Let me set out how the discussion between us hypothetically would/could have gone:

Jon: Dr Phillips could only look but not touch the body without permission of the coroner.

David: But he had to touch the body to pronounce life extinct!

Jon: No, you dumbass, he had already pronounced life extinct when looking through the window.


So do you see why I referred instead to Phillips having to check the temperature of the body?

And, as far as I could tell, until you conceded that your original "look but not touch" was badly worded and referred to the PM, it seemed that you had modified your argument slightly from "Dr Phillips could look but not touch" to "Dr Phillips could look but not touch, apart from to pronounce life extinct".

I wasn't accepting the modified argument either. Bizarrely, even to this very moment you still haven't expressly accepted that Dr Phillips could touch the body to check the body temperature (in fact, in one post, you positively disputed that he could do so).

From that I conclude that you are not very willing to accept when you are wrong, which is a shame.

p.s. I'm sure you wouldn't really have called me a "dumbass".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Moving on then?
Yes, please.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #385  
Old 07-20-2017, 02:29 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
In part because what is being described is not the whole scope of a conventional P.M., and that will take place the next day.
But Jon you are doing this thing again where you fill in gaps and make something read what you want it to read.

It is only in hindsight that you can say that it is being described that the "conventional P.M...will take place the next day". You don't get a inkling of that from the Daily News which says that post mortem examination "was held". And then all it says is that the surgeons did not finish the post-mortem examination until every organ was accounted for. It doesn't say that accounting for every organ was the purpose of the post-mortem examination.

Further, I note that the Daily News of the same date also says:

"the door was broken open and a closer examination of the body was made. Dr. Phillips had by this time been joined by other medical gentlemen, including Dr. Dukes and Dr. Bond, of Westminster Hospital."

Dr Bond didn't arrive until 2pm. So that's another one chalked up for me!
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #386  
Old 07-20-2017, 03:18 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,888
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post

I don't even understand the logic behind that conclusion. The telephone message says that he was conducting an "examination" (not post-mortem examination). The first three pages of his notes refer to an "examination" (not a post-mortem examination).
No David, this is where you are doing what you accuse me of - filling words in to suit your argument.

The first three pages make no mention of an examination, and rightly so, because there is no examination involved in surveying the scene.
Those notes are, as recorded, just describing the position of the body.
That...is not an examination.

Also, I'm not saying two doctors "cannot" conduct a P.M., obviously as there were approx. six doctors in the room at 2 pm on Friday.

I'm pointing out that the formal postmortem procedure is a sequential examination. One that follows strict guidelines.
He begins with an external examination, from head to foot. Then opens the head to examine the brain, etc., after which he opens the thorax to investigate the lungs, heart, etc. Finally the abdomen, the organs of which again are examined in a particular order.
This procedure is not suited for two people to do separate examinations on the same body, at the same time.


Quote:
Further, it seems very unusual for there to be TWO post-mortems whereby the first would inevitably duplicate the work of the second.
Not at all, for the reason's I gave elsewhere.
As I pointed out at the very beginning, any physical examination of a body is a post-mortem. But the only P.M. conducted according to strict guidelines is the one for the Coroner.
There is no duplication.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #387  
Old 07-20-2017, 03:59 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
No David, this is where you are doing what you accuse me of - filling words in to suit your argument.
No I'm not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
The first three pages make no mention of an examination, and rightly so, because there is no examination involved in surveying the scene.
So the first three pages make "no mention" of an examination do they?

Well a copy of the first page is reproduced below (for the second time in this thread) and the very first words at the top of the page are "Notes of Examination of body of woman..."

How does that equate to "no mention" of an examination?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Those notes are, as recorded, just describing the position of the body.
That...is not an examination.
Firstly, those notes are not "just describing the position of the body". They set out where the various organs were located. Precisely what the Daily News report said the doctors were doing that afternoon.

Secondly, if it is not an examination why are the notes entitled "Notes of Examination"?
Attached Images
 
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #388  
Old 07-20-2017, 04:17 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post

Also, I'm not saying two doctors "cannot" conduct a P.M., obviously as there were approx. six doctors in the room at 2 pm on Friday.

I'm pointing out that the formal postmortem procedure is a sequential examination. One that follows strict guidelines.
He begins with an external examination, from head to foot. Then opens the head to examine the brain, etc., after which he opens the thorax to investigate the lungs, heart, etc. Finally the abdomen, the organs of which again are examined in a particular order.
This procedure is not suited for two people to do separate examinations on the same body, at the same time.
Well on the one hand you seem to accept that two doctors can conduct a PM, on the other hand you seem to be saying they can't!

This is from the British Medical Journal of 1910:

"There is nothing to prevent a coroner from directing two registered practitioners to make a post-mortem examination jointly, and in that case each would be entitled to the same fee, namely two guineas..."

Here is a reference to an actual joint examination on the body of the murdered James Dalziel, carried out in Glasgow in 1924, in a book by Andrew Davis called "City of Gangs":

"Dr John Anderson and Dr Andrew Allison, who jointly conducted the post-mortem examination at the Victoria infirmary...."

Reference to a joint post-mortem carried out on the murder of a baby in Leeds in 2015:

"Death of a 14-week-old girl in March 2012. Post-mortem examination jointly conducted by two pathologists resulted in the recording of two different probable causes of death"

http://www.oscb.org.uk/wp-content/up...se-Reviews.pdf

You haven't got a leg to stand on Jon.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #389  
Old 07-20-2017, 04:23 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Not at all, for the reason's I gave elsewhere.
Which were not convincing or supported by sources as I recall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
As I pointed out at the very beginning, any physical examination of a body is a post-mortem. But the only P.M. conducted according to strict guidelines is the one for the Coroner.
There is no duplication.
I'm talking about a formal post-mortem examination Jon. The one you told me that there are "strict guidelines" for. And you can forget who the PM is carried out for. I'm only interested in what the examination actually consisted of. The notes of Dr Bond under the heading "Postmortem Examination" read remarkably like a formal post-mortem examination to me. How do they read to you?

And if Dr Bond conducted a formal post-mortem examination on the Friday, why would Dr Phillips repeat that same examination on the Saturday?

It surely makes no sense. I could understand it if the first PM was being challenged or someone wanted a second opinion or something like that. But simply repeating two identical PMs on two consecutive days is very odd.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #390  
Old 07-20-2017, 04:29 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,888
Default

Quite possibly this just adds the cherry to your cake.

Shortly after four o'clock yesterday a covered van was driven to Miller's-court, and in a few minutes the remains were placed in a shell and quietly removed to the mortuary adjoining Shoreditch Church to await the inquest, at the Shoreditch Town Hall, on Monday.
http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../dt881110.html


From what you've laid out it can be accepted that Dr. Bond was involved in an examination on Friday, and appeared at the Coroner's PM on Saturday.

That, provisionally established, how does this impact the role of Dr. Phillips, and the sequence of events as attributed to him on Friday?
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
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 11:56 AM.


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