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:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Nature of Evidence - by John G 31 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Apron placement as intimidation? - by Abby Normal 32 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Nature of Evidence - by Abby Normal 36 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Apron placement as intimidation? - by Robert St Devil 1 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Apron placement as intimidation? - by Harry D 1 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Apron placement as intimidation? - by Herlock Sholmes 1 hour and 16 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Nature of Evidence - (37 posts)
Mary Ann Nichols: Double throat cuts - (22 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Apron placement as intimidation? - (15 posts)
Other: Two London Murder Mysteries - (9 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys husband - (7 posts)
Non-Fiction: Deconstructing Jack by Simon Wood - (5 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
  #41  
Old 08-10-2016, 11:27 AM
Hunter Hunter is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,642
Default

Maybe the misconception is that there were "reports" as opposed to "notes" to begin with.
__________________
Best Wishes,
Hunter
____________________________________________

When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-11-2016, 02:16 PM
John G John G is online now
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,648
Default

Dr Bond was certainly a controversial figure. For instance, in the Rose Mylett case he disagreed with the opinion of five other doctors, including Dr Phillips, in concluding that it was not a case of wilful murder.

However, I personally believe that all of the doctors involved in the "Whitechapel Murders" were seriously out of their depth, and it's disconcerting to say the least that opinions, as to the skill, and likely occupation of JtR, ranged from Dr Bond's view of no skilled at all-not even that of a common horse slaughterer, to Dr Phillips' medical expert!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-11-2016, 11:40 PM
John Wheat John Wheat is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,483
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Dr Bond was certainly a controversial figure. For instance, in the Rose Mylett case he disagreed with the opinion of five other doctors, including Dr Phillips, in concluding that it was not a case of wilful murder.

However, I personally believe that all of the doctors involved in the "Whitechapel Murders" were seriously out of their depth, and it's disconcerting to say the least that opinions, as to the skill, and likely occupation of JtR, ranged from Dr Bond's view of no skilled at all-not even that of a common horse slaughterer, to Dr Phillips' medical expert!
I agree with what your saying John however wasn't it a case of medical practices not being advanced enough rather than a fault of the doctors involved in the "Whitechapel Murders"?

Cheers John
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-12-2016, 01:20 PM
John G John G is online now
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,648
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wheat View Post
I agree with what your saying John however wasn't it a case of medical practices not being advanced enough rather than a fault of the doctors involved in the "Whitechapel Murders"?

Cheers John
Yes, and of course, none of the doctors involved were forensic experts. And how many had, say, extensive surgical experience? Moreover, even for modern forensics there are limitations, especially as regards determining time of death. In fact, it's now realised that there are so many variables that the UK's Forensic Science Regulator states, in its official guidance, that pathologists shouldn't even attempt to estimate the post mortem interval (the main difficulty seems to be a woeful lack of research, for instance, regarding rigor mortis, there have been no longitudinal study on a large random sample).
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 01:35 PM.


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