I'm a little bit worried you are not reading my posts properly. Bond says that rigor-mortis was increasing after his visit at 2pm, at which time he was carrying out an examination, but not, expressly, after the start of a post-mortem examination. Please read my #138 carefully. Had you answered the question I asked you in the second paragraph, we might have been able to avoid this sort of confusion.
We need to be sure we are discussing the same sections.
"Rigor Mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination"
Obviously, this is the Friday post-mortem at 2:00 pm. That is what I am saying.
His first line in this report which you previously quoted: "I have also made a Post Mortem Examination of the mutilated remains of a woman found yesterday in a small room in Dorset Street".
As he took part in two post-mortems, this line could refer to either. Regardless, it does not help solve our debate.
So, there is no value in press reports unless their reports are all first-hand accounts? Well, that's the end of the press as we know it.
Again you show that you haven't understood what I've been saying to you in about 100 posts.
I'm not saying there's no value in press reports in general and I'm not saying there is no value in this report.
What I'm saying is that the fact that it has been reported does not mean it is established fact. You continually treat it as established fact. You do not qualify or caveat the statement that there were these two examinations.
Do you understand? It's you I'm "attacking" Not the newspaper reports!
From what I see David, you are the one who "thinks" there was only one.
No, I've told you on countless occasions that I think that this is one possible interpretation of the evidence. For me the most probable one. I fully accept it is possible that there were two examinations but it is not certain. It is not an established fact. So you should stop saying it was!
But it's bang on the subject. Yes, every newspaper has both correct and incorrect information. So how do you know that the newspaper was correct on this occasion when it referred to a preliminary examination being carried out by Dr Duke, meaning Dr Phillips?
Because of other reports taken into account.
I never said you should have mentioned Warren. What you should have done was indicate by the use of dots that you had omitted to reproduce a section of the report, as you must know.
Completely separate paragraph, separate heading, nothing to do with the subject at hand.
First the victim & scene are described as found.
Then the examination is recorded in detail.
Take a look at Phillips's examination of McKenzie. Thankfully we have this prime example of how it should be done.
Sorry, Jon, doesn't Phillip's report of his McKenzie examination support exactly what I have been saying?
Firstly, as you say, Phillips describes the victim and scene as found but then there is a new heading:
"Exn of body at mortuary".
In other words, he is describing two completely separate examinations at two separate locations.
That is precisely what I am suggesting Dr Bond is doing in his 16 November "report". Firstly reporting what he saw during his examination in 13 Miller's Court. Then reporting the post-mortem examination at the mortuary.
Sorry to be a pain with my questions (let me know if they are too difficult for you) but why could not Dr Bond be doing the very same thing in his "report"?
You are once again getting it all the wrong way round.
I'm not dismissing anything.
I'm asking you why you are accepting the newspaper report without corroboration and without qualification.
Do you see the difference?
It's precisely because there are other press reports, even though some get specific details wrong, these details are correctly presented in other versions.
That is what collating is, obtaining an overview of the whole scenario and determining from what we have the apparent sequence of events.