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:
General Discussion: What Would It Take To Convince You? - by Trevor Marriott 18 minutes ago.
General Discussion: What Would It Take To Convince You? - by drstrange169 2 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by Iconoclast 2 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Iconoclast 2 hours ago.
General Discussion: What Would It Take To Convince You? - by GUT 3 hours ago.
General Discussion: What Would It Take To Convince You? - by Timasina 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (44 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (29 posts)
General Police Discussion: Leaving one's beat - (27 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Was Annie Chapman a rotund woman? - (20 posts)
Witnesses: Value of a lie - (14 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Bloodhounds - (11 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
  #21  
Old 06-02-2016, 11:55 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,613
Default

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

I suppose it all depends on what answer Anderson was after.

Take a look at what Bond was given in order to form his opinion. Then compare and contrast it with his professional opinion.
Did I expect you to answer my questions? No.

Did I expect you speak in riddles? Yes.

So I'm certainly not disappointed.

The answer Anderson was after was obviously Dr Bond's professional opinion as to the amount of surgical skill and anatomical knowledge possessed by the murderer or murderers of the women who had recently been murdered in the East End.

Dr Bond tells us he was provided with "the notes" relating to the previous four murder victims attributed to the Whitechapel Murderer and he participated in the autopsy of Kelly.

I have no idea how this thread - on a very simple point about Bond's dismissal and subsequent resignation as Scotland Yard's Divisional Surgeon - has come down this irrelevant path.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-02-2016, 01:28 PM
Simon Wood Simon Wood is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,186
Default

Hi David,

It's small wonder you "have no idea."

The point about Bond's dismissal and subsequent resignation as Scotland Yard's Divisional Surgeon is taken.

Read Bond's report again carefully, and inwardly digest.

Regards,

Simon
__________________
Fidiamo in Legno.
http://deconstructingjack.net/
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-02-2016, 01:38 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,613
Default

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

It's small wonder you "have no idea."

The point about Bond's dismissal and subsequent resignation as Scotland Yard's Divisional Surgeon is taken.

Read Bond's report again carefully, and inwardly digest.
It's good that you aren't taking my words out of context Simon (not).

I really don't need to read Bond's report again. Had there been anything of significance in it of the type you are suggesting (whatever it is you are suggesting) I'm sure it would have been included in the book 'Deconstructing Jack' but I have no recollection of reading anything about it in that 565 page tome and Dr Bond doesn't even merit inclusion in the book's index.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-02-2016, 01:58 PM
Simon Wood Simon Wood is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,186
Default

Hi David,

Bond's report was included in the book. You obviously didn't read it very closely.

My apologies. Any index omissions have been remedied for the next edition.

Regards,

Simon
__________________
Fidiamo in Legno.
http://deconstructingjack.net/
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-02-2016, 02:20 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,613
Default

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

Bond's report was included in the book. You obviously didn't read it very closely.

My apologies. Any index omissions have been remedied for the next edition.
I can assure you I read it very closely Simon.

Are you referring to pages 374 to 377 in your book?

Do I find the significant point you are making in this thread within those four pages?

What immediately strikes me about your analysis is that you purport to summarise what Dr Bond would have read about the previous murders without actually knowing what he did read. You seem to think that he was provided with the conclusions of previous doctors about the surgical skill and anatomical knowledge involved whereas I would have thought he would simply, and quite properly, have been provided with the medical notes of the post-mortem examinations, allowing him to form his own conclusions.

If this IS your big point, i.e. that Dr Bond's conclusions don't conform to what you think he should have concluded, even though you have never seen the notes from which he was working, then I can't help feeling it's not a very good one.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-02-2016, 02:27 PM
Simon Wood Simon Wood is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,186
Default

Hi David,

Thank you. Glad you found it.

Your opinion is of no interest to me.

Regards,

Simon
__________________
Fidiamo in Legno.
http://deconstructingjack.net/
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-02-2016, 02:36 PM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,492
Default

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

Thank you. Glad you found it.

Your opinion is of no interest to me.

Regards,

Simon
Hi Simon
I am glad to see that I am not the only one on here who is having trouble making people understand and accept facts that are presented to them.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-02-2016, 02:38 PM
Simon Wood Simon Wood is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,186
Default

Hi Trevor,

It's an uphill struggle.

Regards,

Simon

Last edited by Simon Wood : 06-02-2016 at 02:56 PM. Reason: made a complete rickets of the post
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-02-2016, 03:22 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,613
Default

So that WAS your big point then was it Simon? I finally managed to tease it out of you did I?

You think that Anderson provided Bond with selective information which led him in a certain direction OR that Bond perversely came to conclusions which he should not have formed from the information he was given. (It's not entirely clear to me which is your favoured option.)

In my view, however, your point is badly flawed because you evidently think that Bond was provided with the conclusions of the doctors who examined the previous victims and that he then should have agreed with them. Has it occurred to you that this would have negated the entire point of the exercise of asking him (the "expert") for his opinion?

In my view, he was only given the original notes of the post-mortem examinations of the four previous victims which were in similar form to his notes on Kelly. This he why he refers to the material he was given as "the notes". From that original source material, he then formed his conclusions as to surgical skill and anatomical knowledge of the murderer(s). If those conclusions were different from the conclusions of the doctors expressed at the inquests, well that was the whole point of the exercise.

It seems to me that you are hopelessly on the wrong track when you say in your book: 'it appears Bond had not been given the full inquest transcripts.' Well of course he wasn't Simon because no transcripts ever existed. If you mean the depositions then that is no surprise because Robert Anderson and the police never had them. They remained with the coroner. They were only copied for the DPP if there was a prosecution.

I suggest it would not have been helpful for Bond to have been provided with the evidence at the inquest of the previous doctors in any form (or even their reports). That would have potentially muddied his thinking. All he needed was the examination notes which have provided him with all the relevant information about the murder victims without any superfluous commentary.

So you and Trevor can mutter all you like about me - the absolute irony of Trevor's comment, of course, is that you have presented absolutely no facts in this thread at all, just riddles which I have had to try and decipher on my own - but it's not going to change the fact that your book has gone badly wrong on this issue.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-02-2016, 03:49 PM
Simon Wood Simon Wood is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,186
Default

Hi David,

As usual, you have completely missed the point.

You have now become tiresome and are now on "ignore."

Have a nice day.

Regards,

Simon
__________________
Fidiamo in Legno.
http://deconstructingjack.net/
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 12:20 AM.


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