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:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Fisherman 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Trevor Marriott 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Fisherman 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Fisherman 4 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Only one suspect can be shown to have carried a knife. - by Richard Patterson 8 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Only one suspect can be shown to have carried a knife. - by Richard Patterson 8 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (62 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (8 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Only one suspect can be shown to have carried a knife. - (7 posts)
Witnesses: Packer and the Pinchin Street torso - (5 posts)
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - (3 posts)
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - (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
  #371  
Old 07-20-2017, 09:22 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Which is quite consistent with those notes being from his first visual examination on entering the room at 2 pm, before they get down to the business of conducting a P.M., referred to above.
But it's also consistent with the notes being his entire examination in the room between 2pm and 4pm before getting down to the business of conducting a PM in the mortuary.

Because, after all, that's what would normally happen. It's the standard procedure. So chances are that's what happened on this occasion as well.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #372  
Old 07-20-2017, 09:25 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Then why do you contest the press report that they waited for the required authority to conduct that P.M. at 2 pm?
I'll just paste it in again shall I:

"Firstly because Swanson states in respect of Dr Bond's examination that the Coroner's consent "was not asked for or necessary". Secondly because the coroner was hardly likely to direct that two PMs be conducted. Thirdly, although not entirely conclusive, we may add that the coroner didn't become involved until jurisdiction was fixed which didn't happen until the coroner's officer decided which mortuary to take the body to. You've mentioned that the coroner's officer turned up at 4pm so it seems unlikely to me that anyone knew which coroner to ask at 2pm. And of course I don't accept that PM was conducted on the Friday so no consent from a coroner was needed for the (in situ) examination that was conducted."
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #373  
Old 07-20-2017, 09:26 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,786
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
I've not found any others, Jon, but then, truth to tell, I haven't really been looking.

Surely the reason that a coroner's permission has to be sought before a proper post mortem exam is performed, is not simply because the body is touched - I'm sure any medical exam involves a degree of touching, poking and prodding - but that it is destructive, ie that further damage is done to the body in the form of removal and biopsies of the major organs, etc.
No?

You must have missed my post 331, where I made that very argument.

"David, in order to make that determination the doctor has to touch the body to check for a pulse. I explained this in a previous post.
That, though, is the extent of his contact with the body unless....he is authorized by the Coroner to examine the body, or touch any other part of the body which might compromise evidence."

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...&postcount=331
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #374  
Old 07-20-2017, 09:39 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post

You must have missed my post 331, where I made that very argument.

"David, in order to make that determination the doctor has to touch the body to check for a pulse. I explained this in a previous post.
That, though, is the extent of his contact with the body unless....he is authorized by the Coroner to examine the body, or touch any other part of the body which might compromise evidence."

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...&postcount=331
I disagree with both of you. The law would assume that a lawfully qualified doctor making a post-mortem examination would do so with requisite care and would not compromise any evidence. And when a coroner gives permission for a PM he's never in any kind of position to check that evidence might be compromised in a particular case.

No, I believe the reason that permission is supposed to be sought is to ensure that the ratepayers (via the coroner) don't end up paying doctors' fees for PMs which don't need to be conducted.

That's why the doctor doesn't get paid if he conducts a PM without permission.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #375  
Old 07-20-2017, 09:45 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,786
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post

I find it very amusing that you say this. But I disagree. He must be talking about the whole of Bond's involvement.
I was offering that caveat for two reason's.
First, I suspect that Bond was sent to Millers Court on Friday by Anderson, not invited by Phillips, who may not have known of Bond's private assignment.
Second, at the Coroner's P.M. on Saturday, Phillips should be the sole surgeon conducting the P.M. for the inquest. Brown & Bond being present as observers only.
Can't be certain on either count, but that is the reason.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #376  
Old 07-20-2017, 09:53 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
I was offering that caveat for two reason's.
First, I suspect that Bond was sent to Millers Court on Friday by Anderson, not invited by Phillips, who may not have known of Bond's private assignment.
Second, at the Coroner's P.M. on Saturday, Phillips should be the sole surgeon conducting the P.M. for the inquest. Brown & Bond being present as observers only.
Can't be certain on either count, but that is the reason.
Well my thinking is that if the coroner's consent for Bond's examination was asked for in respect of the Friday exam it would be somewhat obtuse of Swanson to report to his superiors that the coroner's consent was NOT asked for but he only meant on the Saturday.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #377  
Old 07-20-2017, 11:34 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,786
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
On what basis do you say that in the context of removing the body?

And how do you explain this comment in the Evening Post on 12 November:

"When the coroner’s officer came into play he could not take the body to the same place, or he would have lost his hold upon it, so he took it to Shoreditch and kept it in Mr. Macdonald’s district."
What does "same place" refer to?

Quote:
That suggests total independence does it not?
On the contrary, a Coroner's officer works for a Coroner, not any Coroner, or he would be a Coroner's officer.

If you are suggesting the position is an independent one then perhaps you need to demonstrate that.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #378  
Old 07-20-2017, 11:40 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,786
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
It's simply not true to say "All indications". In fact, I can't really think of any. You rely totally on the version of events set out in the Times and Daily Chronicle.

On the other hand, there are indications that the press version of a preliminary examination conducted at 2pm on Friday is correct.
Well, there are several. Which include the phone message on 9.11.88, which indicated Bond was "engaged in making his examination".
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.

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.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.

Last edited by Wickerman : 07-20-2017 at 11:43 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #379  
Old 07-20-2017, 01:54 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,786
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
But that doesn't make any sense at all Jon.

With there being no fee for the in-situ examination, the doctors don't need to wait for any approval to commence such an examination.

I can't work out what you are saying here.
Perhaps if you drop this "in-situ examination" you will be able to follow me more clearly.

I had suggested that they were waiting for permission to conduct the P.M., not waiting to conduct any preliminary/visual/cursory examination.
Both Phillips, & when he arrived Bond, were able to do that by themselves.

You might be better able to follow me if we adopted the same terminology.

From my perspective my "Preliminary/visual/Cursory examination" is the same as your "in-situ examination".
The reason being a P.M. is not "normally" conducted at a crime scene.

I 'think', that after Phillips looked through the window he knew this case would be different, so he may have sent word to the Coroner for permission to conduct a P.M. limited to the location and replacement of the organs in order to better facilitate a P.M. for the inquest, knowing he could not do that in this room.
In order to have the Coroner's P.M. run as smoothly as possible it is necessary to have the body complete, so any investigation of potentially missing parts needs to be done today (Friday).

When Phillips entered the room at 1:30 he surveyed the scene, then made a visual examination, he may have had the bed moved, but he was able to draw certain conclusions from that visual exam.

Next, the photographer was permitted to enter.

At some point prior to 2 pm, Dr Bond arrived and entered, his initial observations are noted down under the heading "Position of Body".

Approx 5-6 other doctors arrived and entered the room and at 2 pm this limited P.M. commenced.
The details of which are noted by Bond under the heading "Postmortem examination".
(Note: if you think those notes were actually the result of the Coroners P.M. on Sat. morning - fine, I have no problem with that. However, that does not mean what took place at 2 pm Friday was not a post-mortem)

Limited P.M's are conducted today all the time, it is quite conventional.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #380  
Old 07-20-2017, 01:58 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
What does "same place" refer to?
It's referring to Old Montague Street, where the body of Nichols was taken.

The full extract can be found in my #262 in this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
On the contrary, a Coroner's officer works for a Coroner, not any Coroner, or he would be a Coroner's officer.

If you are suggesting the position is an independent one then perhaps you need to demonstrate that.
Yes, I'm perfectly aware of what you say and wasn't suggesting that a coroner's officer works for any coroner. The demonstration I gave was the quote from the Evening Post which suggests that it was the coroner's officer who decided where the body was taken, not the coroner.

We find exactly the same thing in the Star of 10 November:

"If he [the coroner's officer] had taken it to Old Montague-street, it would have gone from his control, so he took it to Shoreditch, which is within his district."

The suggestion there again is that the coroner's officer kept the body in his district, and that it was his decision to do so.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
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 02:20 AM.


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