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:
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - by richardnunweek 12 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - by Sam Flynn 27 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - by Varqm 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - by Varqm 4 hours ago.
General Discussion: New claims Jack the Ripper was noted poet who studied as a priest in the North East - by harry 6 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - by Abby Normal 8 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - (19 posts)
General Discussion: New claims Jack the Ripper was noted poet who studied as a priest in the North East - (13 posts)
General Discussion: Two Years of Articles - (4 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Joe Barnett´s alibi accepted lightly? - (4 posts)
Visual Media: Francis Thompson Priest Poet Ripper - (3 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Is the first published suspect book overlooked? - (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 > Doctors and Coroners

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-01-2016, 11:10 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,675
Default Why Bond?

Given the current interest in Dr Bond I thought I would share a snippet of information that I stumbled across at the National Archives; something that was news to me but for all I know is the subject of an article somewhere in the reams of Ripperlogical publications.

I think it is the answer to the question of why Dr Bond out of all the medical men in London was called to be present at the autopsy of Mary Jane Kelly. After all, he was the surgeon for 'A' Division in Westminster and had nothing to do with the 'H' Division of Whitechapel.

Ah, but I hear you say, he had been instructed by Robert Anderson on 25 October to provide an opinion on the Whitechapel murders due to his "eminence as an expert in such cases". Yes, indeed, but why had Bond of all people been chosen to provide such an opinion?

An easy one? Because he was the Divisional Surgeon to Scotland Yard?

Well, no actually. And that's the thing. All of the officers within Scotland Yard were removed from Dr Bond's responsibility by Sir Charles Warren in January 1888. In other words, Dr Bond was sacked as the Divisional Surgeon to Scotland Yard (albeit retained for the rest of 'A' Division).

The reasons given were that Dr Bond was too busy to take care of so many officers and also that most officers in Scotland Yard lived south of the river so that Dr Bond being in Westminster was inconvenient.

Dr Bond, who had not been consulted about the change in arrangements, was furious, especially because it would result in a loss of annual income to him of about £100. He complained to the Home Secretary that the Commissioner did not have the authority to make such a change. There seemed to be some sympathy in the Home Office for this view.

Correspondence between Warren and the Home Office about this issue dragged on for some months, with a defensive Sir Charles, under pressure to justify his action, saying in a letter dated 18 April 1888:

'I beg to say that it would be that it would be quite impossible for me to carry on the duties of Commissioner without danger of a fiasco, if it is in any way understood or implied that I cannot move men from the medical care of a Surgeon without reference to the Secretary of State; or that I am in any way restricted as to my authority in placing men under the care of a Divisional Surgeon.'

With a resolution to the issue seemingly difficult to find, the problem for the Commissioner came to an end on 4 October 1888 when Dr Bond agreed to resign as the Divisional Surgeon for Scotland Yard/Commissioner's Office.

The Chief Surgeon explained to Sir Charles that Dr Bond, 'has had a very large Medico-Legal experience, and he would naturally prefer to be referred to by the Commissioner as a Medico-Legal Expert, than to retain charge of an extra number of men which would necessitate frequent long journeys to the south of the river, and which would further in many instances disqualify him from being consulted in Police Civil and Criminal business in his higher capacity of Medical Jurist.'

Lo and behold, within a few weeks of tendering his written resignation, Dr Bond was being given what was no doubt a lucrative assignment of providing his opinion on the Whitechapel murders!

Although there is nothing in writing to this effect, I have little doubt that the assignment given to Dr Bond was part of a compromise agreement between the doctor and Sir Charles Warren. In return for dropping his claim against the Commissioner for being unfairly dismissed as the surgeon at Scotland Yard, Dr Bond was to be treated by Scotland Yard as an expert in criminal cases and handed paid work on that basis.

The covering letter of the Chief Surgeon referred to above was actually dated 1 November but I'm sure that was just the formal written statement and the matter had been discussed between the parties involved prior to this.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-01-2016, 11:45 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: north london
Posts: 2,563
Default

David

that is very interesting information, I have often wondered why he was apparently parachuted into the investigation, Phillips appeared to be doing ok, and no obviously in need of help.


steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-01-2016, 11:52 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 14,270
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
David

that is very interesting information, I have often wondered why he was apparently parachuted into the investigation, Phillips appeared to be doing ok, and no obviously in need of help.


steve
Whether Phillips was in need of help or not would not have been of much material interest, I think - the magnitude of the whole affair was such as to call for top resources being called into action. With the press breathing down the necks of the ones responsible, they were never going to be able to keep it low-key in any sense.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-01-2016, 12:18 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: north london
Posts: 2,563
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Whether Phillips was in need of help or not would not have been of much material interest, I think - the magnitude of the whole affair was such as to call for top resources being called into action. With the press breathing down the necks of the ones responsible, they were never going to be able to keep it low-key in any sense.
Hi Fisherman

While i don't disagree, putting more doctors in would not help solve the case, there were no forensics to speak of.

The cost of drafting in Bond must have been equal to a fair number of police on the ground, that would be far more likely to quell uneasy at the results obtained.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-01-2016, 12:26 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 14,270
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Hi Fisherman

While i don't disagree, putting more doctors in would not help solve the case, there were no forensics to speak of.

The cost of drafting in Bond must have been equal to a fair number of police on the ground, that would be far more likely to quell uneasy at the results obtained.

Steve
I am not disagreeing with you over how Phillips would have been well qualified and able, Steve. But those considerations are regularly showed aside when subjected to a press broadside.
The case was a worldwide sensation. In situations like that, the responsible parties will choose the wording "We are doing all we can" over "We are doing all we need to". And the more visible the effort, the more likely it will be employed...
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-01-2016, 01:00 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,675
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Whether Phillips was in need of help or not would not have been of much material interest, I think - the magnitude of the whole affair was such as to call for top resources being called into action. With the press breathing down the necks of the ones responsible, they were never going to be able to keep it low-key in any sense.
The issue raised by this thread, Fisherman, is not why another doctor was brought in but why Bond specifically was brought in.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-01-2016, 02:00 PM
Debra A Debra A is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorkshire England
Posts: 2,803
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
The issue raised by this thread, Fisherman, is not why another doctor was brought in but why Bond specifically was brought in.
I think it has certainly been suggested in the past that Bond was brought in on account of his specific experience in medical jurisprudence ( I certainly thought this myself) but this was based on the fact he lectured in the subject at the Westminster Hospital. Your new finding that the position was probably given to placate him and avoid disharmony is interesting. Thanks FWIW
__________________
,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-01-2016, 02:22 PM
jerryd jerryd is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 721
Default

Good work, David.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-01-2016, 02:28 PM
Simon Wood Simon Wood is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,000
Default

Hi All,

In his 25th October 1888 letter to Bond, Anderson wrote -

“He [Warren] feels that your eminence as an expert in such cases—and it is entirely in that capacity that the present case is referred to you, will make your opinion especially valuable.”

Regards,

Simon
__________________
Fidiamo in Legno.
http://deconstructingjack.net/

Last edited by Simon Wood : 06-01-2016 at 02:31 PM. Reason: spolling mistook
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-01-2016, 02:31 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,675
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Wood View Post
Hi All,

In his letter to Bond, Anderson wrote -

“He [Warren] feels that your eminence as an expert in such cases—and it is entirely in that capacity that the present case is referred to you, will make your opinion especially valuable.”
That was quoted by me in the third paragraph of the OP.
__________________
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 01:55 AM.


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