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:
General Discussion: What Would It Take To Convince You? - by Herlock Sholmes 5 minutes ago.
Alice Mackenzie: McKenzie - Ripper or not? - by jerryd 17 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Weapons used on Mary? - by Henry Flower 19 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Weapons used on Mary? - by Sam Flynn 22 minutes ago.
General Discussion: What Would It Take To Convince You? - by Trevor Marriott 40 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Weapons used on Mary? - by Henry Flower 48 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Mary Jane Kelly: Weapons used on Mary? - (37 posts)
General Discussion: What Would It Take To Convince You? - (25 posts)
Witnesses: Value of a lie - (13 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (12 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (12 posts)
General Police Discussion: Leaving one's beat - (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
  #391  
Old 07-20-2017, 04:43 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,620
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Which were not convincing or supported by sources as I recall.



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.
Now you have confused me.

How does this report figure into your view of events?

As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church. It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing. At the first examination which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case.
http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881112.html
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #392  
Old 07-20-2017, 04:50 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,616
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
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.
I wasn't even aware that either of those facts were ever in doubt (nor that I've done anything to place Bond at the Saturday PM).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
That, provisionally established, how does this impact the role of Dr. Phillips, and the sequence of events as attributed to him on Friday?
Given that the above two facts you mention have always been known and agreed by both of us, I refer you to all the previous 200 posts or so that I have made on this subject.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #393  
Old 07-20-2017, 04:55 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,616
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Now you have confused me.
How have I managed to do that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
How does this report figure into your view of events?

As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church. It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing. At the first examination which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case.
http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881112.html
Doesn't it support what I've been saying all along? Namely that the "first examination", i.e. the one on Friday between 2pm and 4pm, was a preliminary examination only (as per the first three pages of Dr Bond's notes) whereas the examination on Saturday morning was a proper post-mortem examination (as per the last four pages of Dr Bond's notes).
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #394  
Old 07-20-2017, 07:44 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,620
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
How have I managed to do that?

Doesn't it support what I've been saying all along? Namely that the "first examination", i.e. the one on Friday between 2pm and 4pm, was a preliminary examination only (as per the first three pages of Dr Bond's notes) whereas the examination on Saturday morning was a proper post-mortem examination (as per the last four pages of Dr Bond's notes).
It does, but this (below) suits my interpretation, from the same newspaper (Times), on Saturday.

"Dr Phillips, on his arrival, carefully examined the body of the dead woman, and later on made a second examination in company with Dr Bond, from Westminster, Dr Gordon Brown, from the City, Dr Duke from Spitalfields, and Dr Phillip's assistant......
As already stated, the post-mortem examination was of the most exhaustive character, and surgeons did not quit their work until every organ had been accounted for and placed as closely as possible in its natural position."

http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881110.html

So the article I posted to you is only comparing two similar types of examinations, not suggesting they were of a different nature. Friday's took 2 hrs, Saturday's 2.5 hrs., but the same paper identifies both examinations as the same type.

This is why I feel the role of Dr Phillips has not changed from the position I offered at the beginning of our debate.
Phillips and Bond had different responsibilities in this case and that is reflected in the terminology.

The testimony of Phillips at the inquest is quite consistent with the article above, him only describing a visual examination on entering the room.
You have adjusted what was commonly assumed to be the role of Dr. Bond, but not affected the role of Dr. Phillips. Which is still of value because this issue has never been explored to the best of my knowledge, at any time. It's just a shame few others were inclined to offer an opinion in this debate.

The preliminary exam. as identified in the press is still the one which took place prior to the admission of the photographer, and a P.M. followed at 2 pm that same day.
For Bond this P.M. was merely an examination in his notes due to his responsibilities being of a less complex nature when compared to Phillips.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #395  
Old 07-21-2017, 01:35 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,616
Default

Believe it or not, Jon, I have known exactly what your argument is the whole time - the article in the Times of 10 November was the first thing you drew to my attention - and I have always said it is possible but by no means an established fact.

My interpretation of the Times article of Monday 12 November is that it is actually correcting what it said on the Saturday. Far from a post-mortem examination "of the most exhaustive character" having taken place in the room on the Friday, the newspaper has now been informed that it had been only a "cursory" examination; the exhaustive post-mortem, it now realises, occurred on the Saturday morning.

As for no-one else participating in this debate, I suspect there might have been more involvement if the medical examinations had been the actual topic of this thread. Perhaps it should return now to the subject of double throat cuts.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #396  
Old 07-21-2017, 02:25 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,226
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Believe it or not, Jon, I have known exactly what your argument is the whole time - the article in the Times of 10 November was the first thing you drew to my attention - and I have always said it is possible but by no means an established fact.

My interpretation of the Times article of Monday 12 November is that it is actually correcting what it said on the Saturday. Far from a post-mortem examination "of the most exhaustive character" having taken place in the room on the Friday, the newspaper has now been informed that it had been only a "cursory" examination; the exhaustive post-mortem, it now realises, occurred on the Saturday morning.

As for no-one else participating in this debate, I suspect there might have been more involvement if the medical examinations had been the actual topic of this thread. Perhaps it should return now to the subject of double throat cuts.
That would be nice.

Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #397  
Old 07-21-2017, 04:25 AM
PaulB PaulB is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,403
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
According to what Paul Begg suggests that is the case, and he is never wrong

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
I can understand why it may appear to you that I am never wrong, Trevor, but there have been two or three times when my omnipotence has slipped just slightly. I am sometime misquoted too. I'm not saying that I have been misquoted in this instance, of course, although I think it entirely possible that if you take the trouble to check back you'll see I suggested Dr. Bond's notes were written down by his assistant, Dr. Hebbert.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #398  
Old 07-21-2017, 04:34 AM
PaulB PaulB is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,403
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Thats what I always understood. This is a bit unsettling having Trevor speak in favour of an opinion by Paul....
It unsettled you! Do you have any idea what it did to me! I nearly had to go lie down to recover, but then I realised he was attributing to me something I didn't say. Never mind.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #399  
Old 07-21-2017, 04:37 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,620
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulB View Post
It unsettled you! Do you have any idea what it did to me! I nearly had to go lie down to recover, but then I realised he was attributing to me something I didn't say. Never mind.
True to form though - "T'was ever thus"
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #400  
Old 07-21-2017, 04:43 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,620
Default

On the subject of "Double cuts to the throat", the lacerations to Kelly's throat seem to obscure any attempt, at least by Bond, to provide a meaningful description. Though he is able to make the point that evidence exists of "two deep cuts".

"The neck was cut through the skin & other tissues right down to the vertebrae the 5th & 6th being deeply notched."
http://www.casebook.org/official_doc.../pm-kelly.html

Which raises the question if this is purely coincidental, one cut extending across two vertebrae, or two separate cuts, - an indication the same hand was at work?
__________________
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 03:19 PM.


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