Why Bond?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

You must be easily amused.

Warren wasn't saying anything of the sort.

It was Anderson telling Bond that Warren held him in such high professional esteem. Hence his request.

A different matter altogether.

The Chief Surgeon to the Metropolitan Police might well have told Anderson a different story.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

You must be easily amused.

Warren wasn't saying anything of the sort.

It was Anderson telling Bond that Warren held him in such high professional esteem. Hence his request.

A different matter altogether.

The Chief Surgeon to the Metropolitan Police might well have told Anderson a different story.

What do you mean by "Warren wasn't saying anything of the sort"? The sort of what?

Anderson was obviously communicating Warren's views to Bond on 25 Oct. Why would you even suggest that we need to take Anderson's word that these were Warren's views? They obviously were.

And why would the Chief Surgeon to the Metropolitan Police have told Anderson a different story to the one he was telling Warren?

It's all a very amusing insight into the way you think but is there any substance to it?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

So gratifying to know you're still amused.

1. Anything of the sort Anderson was telling Bond.

2. You don't know that Anderson was communicating Warren's view.

3. McKellar may well have looked at the skimpy information upon which Bond was asked to offer his opinion and found it wanting.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

So gratifying to know you're still amused.

1. Anything of the sort Anderson was telling Bond.

2. You don't know that Anderson was communicating Warren's view.

3. McKellar may well have looked at the skimpy information upon which Bond was asked to offer his opinion and found it wanting.

My response is amusement mixed with confusion.

We have seen that on 2 November Warren referred to Bond as "an expert" to be called in on police criminal (and civil) matters.

A week earlier, Anderson told Bond that he had spoken to Warren "and he has authorised me to ask if you will be good enough to take up the medical evidence given at the several inquests and favour him with your opinion on the matter" adding that Warren had "referred to your eminence as an expert on such cases". Why on earth would Anderson be lying to Bond about what Warren had told him? What possible purpose could it serve? Especially as Anderson was asking Bond to give his opinion to Warren.

So, for me, you really make no sense at all.

And what you think MacKellar has to do with this other than having forwarded Bond's resignation, and possibly being involved as a mediator in the dispute between Warren and Bond, I have no idea.

[Simon Wood]

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.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

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.

[Simon Wood]

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

[David Orsam]

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.

[Simon Wood]

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

[David Orsam]

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.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Thank you. Glad you found it.

Your opinion is of no interest to me.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Trevor,

It's an uphill struggle.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

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.

[Simon Wood]

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