Dr. Bond...being Dr. Bond

[Stewart P Evans]

Report

You did and not that long ago from what I remember. Perhaps you should publish it as I am sure it would be of interest to all of us.
Yes I know that, my point was Harris, being the first Doctor at the scene and he had been called to give evidence at the Inquest, Anderson would have been aware of Harris and his opinion.

At the time of your last visit, whatever date that was. I have no intention of publishing it, and I doubt that I shall publish on the Ripper again.

All we know of what Anderson knew of what the medical men actually thought is what Anderson says in his report, i.e. "Mr. Brownfield made a P.M. on the morning of the 21st and formed the opinion that the woman had been murdered; but this was not communicated to the police. The first intimation I had of it was derived from the report of the inquest in the Evening Paper, which I took up after midnight on the 21st..." Presumably Anderson would have thought that Harris drew the same conclusion as Brownfield. But why Anderson does not mention him by name I know not. Perhaps he viewed the opinion of Brownfield and Harris as a joint one.

[Stephen Thomas]

I quite agree, it does look like a straightforward case of murder, even more so when you read all the witness testimony heard at the inquest.

But, like everything in this case, it has to be looked at in the correct context. The last thing the police wanted at this time, especially with all the vilification they had suffered at the hands of the press, and Home Office criticism, was yet another undetected murder to add to the already lengthy tally for 1888. Add to this the fact that the press was making a big thing about this latest crime, even suggesting that it might be another Ripper crime.

Thank you kindly for that reply, Stewart.

It's all very murky isn't it.

[Rob Clack]

I am sure that we are reading things differently. Anderson's report to Monro on Bond's two visits to Poplar is quite clear and unequivocal. But you are entitled to your own opinion.

Thank you. I just think Anderson made an error, that's all. I believe when Bond told him he confirmed Hebbert's notes he misread that as Bond made a visit to Poplar to confirm Hebbert's notes. Just my opinion.
I just think if Bond actually went to Poplar on the Sunday he would have made a thorough examination there and not merely confirm Hebbert's note.

[Rob Clack]

Yes, I know that. I believe I told you that some considerable time ago I wrote a very lengthy essay on the Poplar murder, 'The Poplar Murder An Exercise in Manipulation', but I have never published it.

You did and not that long ago from what I remember. Perhaps you should publish it as I am sure it would be of interest to all of us.

George James Harris attended the scene as he was available at the time and was assistant to the Divisonal police surgeon. The actual police surgeon being Brownfield he conducted the post mortem and the post mortem was conducted to ascertain the cause of death. Ergo, his was the primary opinion sought. Harris was called at 4.30 a.m. and attended the scene about 4.40 a.m. thus indicating a probable time of death not long after the sighting of her by Alice Graves and the two men at 2.30 a.m. When Harris attended the scene he at first saw the body he did not notice the mark on the neck and did not, then, suspect foul play. He at first thought she had died from asphyxia from drunkenness or natural causes.

It is interesting to note that Dr. Brownfield was seen by Inspector Wildey on the Friday morning (21st) and he did not suggest, then, that it was a case of murder (HO 144/221/A49301H, folio 8). By the time of the inquest the cause of death had become something of a contentious matter and it is not surprising that Harris gave his opinion of the cause of death. He believed it to be a case of asphyxia from strangulation and that a crossed over string had been used to strangle her.

Yes I know that, my point was Harris, being the first Doctor at the scene and he had been called to give evidence at the Inquest, Anderson would have been aware of Harris and his opinion.

[Stewart P Evans]

Opinion

I think this is where we are reading things differently Stewart, while I believe Anderson put preasure on Doctor's Bond and Hebbert to change their minds he didn't succeed and so referred them to Anderson. Why Bond went to Poplar to examine Mylett for himself we can only speculate, maybe Anderson put some doubt in his mind.

I am sure that we are reading things differently. Anderson's report to Monro on Bond's two visits to Poplar is quite clear and unequivocal. But you are entitled to your own opinion.

[Stewart P Evans]

The Poplar Murder

Harris was the first Doctor on scene and appeared at the Inquest (Wednesday 2 January 1889) and gave his opinion as to the cause of death.

Yes, I know that. I believe I told you that some considerable time ago I wrote a very lengthy essay on the Poplar murder, 'The Poplar Murder An Exercise in Manipulation', but I have never published it.

George James Harris attended the scene as he was available at the time and was assistant to the Divisonal police surgeon. The actual police surgeon being Brownfield he conducted the post mortem and the post mortem was conducted to ascertain the cause of death. Ergo, his was the primary opinion sought. Harris was called at 4.30 a.m. and attended the scene about 4.40 a.m. thus indicating a probable time of death not long after the sighting of her by Alice Graves and the two men at 2.30 a.m. When Harris attended the scene he at first saw the body he did not notice the mark on the neck and did not, then, suspect foul play. He at first thought she had died from asphyxia from drunkenness or natural causes.

It is interesting to note that Dr. Brownfield was seen by Inspector Wildey on the Friday morning (21st) and he did not suggest, then, that it was a case of murder (HO 144/221/A49301H, folio 8). By the time of the inquest the cause of death had become something of a contentious matter and it is not surprising that Harris gave his opinion of the cause of death. He believed it to be a case of asphyxia from strangulation and that a crossed over string had been used to strangle her.

[Rob Clack]

We do not know exactly what visits Baxter was aware of, but I would assume that he would be aware of all of them, someone at the mortuary updating him on this.

As an assistant Harris would not be mentioned to the degree the actual police surgeon was (we see this in the case of the Ripper murders where Bagster Phillips' assistant, Percy Clark Hardly gets a mention). Also the three doctors were mentioned by Anderson who may not have been aware that Harris assisted or was not aware of Harris's opinion which would have not been given at that time.

Harris was the first Doctor on scene and appeared at the Inquest (Wednesday 2 January 1889) and gave his opinion as to the cause of death.

[Rob Clack]

Bond at first thought it was merely a case of confirming his colleague's findings - which he did. It wasn't until Anderson 'straightened him out' that he made the second visit and changed his opinion to suit the police idea of 'accidental death'. He didn't lie under oath about it, he just didn't mention his first visit.

Debs, as I read it during the 'long conference' with Bond and Hebbert, Anderson ended by referring them to Monro. It is not clear that they did, at that time, see Monro (he may not have been available, or the reference may have been only if they had any queries) and Anderson continues "But that same afternoon Mr. Bond went again to Poplar..." This is Anderson reporting to Monro so it looks as if Bond took it upon himself to go again, to see if he was able to modify his opinion, as a result of what Anderson had said.

I think this is where we are reading things differently Stewart, while I believe Anderson put preasure on Doctor's Bond and Hebbert to change their minds he didn't succeed and so referred them to Anderson. Why Bond went to Poplar to examine Mylett for himself we can only speculate, maybe Anderson put some doubt in his mind.

[Stewart P Evans]

Visits

Thank you for adressing these issues, Stewart.
When Coroner Baxter made his complaint about the number of doctors who visited the mortuary without his sanction, would he have been aware himself that Dr Bond had visited twice? I only ask because in a few reports of Baxter's summing up he does state that Dr Bond was probably at a disadvantage from having only viewed the body five days after death.
Sun 23 December - Dr. Bond attends the mortuary to verify Hebbert's notes on his examination of the body. All three doctors (Hebbert, McKellar and Bond) confirm Brownfield's view of the case (i.e. it is a murder).
Dr Harris also performed the post mortem with Dr Brownfield and gave evidence at the inquest, I was assuming that he would be one of the three doctors mentioned as being in agreement with Hebbert, McKellar and Brownfield.

We do not know exactly what visits Baxter was aware of, but I would assume that he would be aware of all of them, someone at the mortuary updating him on this.

As an assistant Harris would not be mentioned to the degree the actual police surgeon was (we see this in the case of the Ripper murders where Bagster Phillips' assistant, Percy Clark Hardly gets a mention). Also the three doctors were mentioned by Anderson who may not have been aware that Harris assisted or was not aware of Harris's opinion which would have not been given at that time.

[Stewart P Evans]

Murder

Stewart
This is an honest question.
It looked/looks like an open and shut murder case.
Why would the police want to say it wasn't?
Regards

I quite agree, it does look like a straightforward case of murder, even more so when you read all the witness testimony heard at the inquest.

But, like everything in this case, it has to be looked at in the correct context. The last thing the police wanted at this time, especially with all the vilification they had suffered at the hands of the press, and Home Office criticism, was yet another undetected murder to add to the already lengthy tally for 1888. Add to this the fact that the press was making a big thing about this latest crime, even suggesting that it might be another Ripper crime (the Star), quoting Dr. Brownfield.

On 23 December Monro was happily accepting that it was a murder, stating that, "There is therefore no doubt that the case was one of murder - and murder of a strange and unusual type." He then described the anomalous fact that there was no sign of a struggle at the scene. Monro ended his report for the Home Office, "I need not say that the Assist. Comr. and officers of the Criminal Investigation Dept. are doing, & will do, all they can to detect this mysterious crime."

Undoubtedly Monro was pleased to be told by Anderson that he was convinced that it was not a murder at all, but a 'death from natural causes.' Both men obviously then sought to have this view supported by the medical men.

[Debra A]

And another thing. The reason that Anderson detailed the comings and goings of the doctors was to explain to Monro "the basis of the Coroner's complaint that 'the Assistant Comr. sent down Doctor after Doctor without his sanction..." so he was hardly likely to get it wrong - or add extra visit by Dr. Bond if there wasn't one.

Thank you for adressing these issues, Stewart.

When Coroner Baxter made his complaint about the number of doctors who visited the mortuary without his sanction, would he have been aware himself that Dr Bond had visited twice? I only ask because in a few reports of Baxter's summing up he does state that Dr Bond was probably at a disadvantage from having only viewed the body five days after death.

Sun 23 December - Dr. Bond attends the mortuary to verify Hebbert's notes on his examination of the body. All three doctors (Hebbert, McKellar and Bond) confirm Brownfield's view of the case (i.e. it is a murder).

Dr Harris also performed the post mortem with Dr Brownfield and gave evidence at the inquest, I was assuming that he would be one of the three doctors mentioned as being in agreement with Hebbert, McKellar and Brownfield.

[Stephen Thomas]

Bond at first thought it was merely a case of confirming his colleague's findings - which he did. It wasn't until Anderson 'straightened him out' that he made the second visit and changed his opinion to suit the police idea of 'accidental death'.

Stewart

This is an honest question.

It looked/looks like an open and shut murder case.

Why would the police want to say it wasn't?

Regards

[Natalie Severn]

But Norma, he also saved a woman from the same fate, by going against another doctor to prove that she hadn't killed her newborn but that it's injuries were due to birth trauma.

Yes Debs,he did indeed and I already knew of the case and I commend him for that.
But to me the case I commented upon above illustrates the perils of the death sentence-which I am not against in every instance, but I am where there is any doubt whatever,because an innocent person"s life may be taken when a prison sentence would have avoided that .
Dr Bond therefore had blood on his hands,which is what is meant by the saying ,"he who lives by the sword-----" in other words those who partake in killing,including assisting those who pass a death sentence,are,in my book,complicit and therefore guilty, of taking another"s life-in the biblical sense.You have to be pretty damn certain to participate in that.

[Stewart P Evans]

Odd?

...
...I find it odd that someone like Stewart who has so much knowledge and insight to offer and maybe put us all on the right road over Bond would chose to post a picture displaying Bond's suicide as some sort of 'spectacle' rather than post the content of the artcle that accompanied it and then only go on to comment on our article after that event.

Well you shouldn't find it odd. I have this (bad?) habit of flitting through threads with no intention of contributing to the debate. Sometimes, in doing this, I spot something discussed where I have an illustration to hand that refers to it. That's all that happened here, I added the image thinking it would be of interest (which it appears it was) and then I left with no intention of getting involved in debate - until you responded with your comment to my posting of the image. I then read the thread more thoroughly and decided to take part.

[Ben]

I have found your posts to me abusive and that no matter how I have tried to deal with them and with you your abuse continues.

Sorry you feel that way, Norma. I may have been a little robust in my insistence upon certain points, but I don't think I've been "abusive". I didn't, for instance, make jokes about the manner in which Thomas Bond met his death as did in post #23. And you're at it again:

Dont ask me to have sympathy for him.He who lives by the sword dies by the sword

Implying what, exactly?