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