Dr. Bond...being Dr. Bond

[Stewart P Evans]

Sensible?

I agree, facts are facts, but that doesn't mean they are right. When Anderson said 'All three Doctor’s confirmed Mr Brownfield’s view of the case,' he was wrong, as four doctors confirmed Brownfields view. And why would Bond go all the way to Poplar just to verify Hebbert's notes and why would he lie under oath about it?
Fair comment, since we weren't writing a suspect based book we should have put all the facts in.

I used to think that you were a sensible chap.

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.

[Stewart P Evans]

Understand?

I don't know Norma, its Bond against Anderson now, and Anderson has been made out to be a liar and unreliable so many times I really don't know what to believe anymore.

This sort of comment I would have thought was beneath you. Do you not understand the nature of Anderson's job, and the difference between his official reporting and statements he made for public consumption.

[Stewart P Evans]

And Another Thing

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.

[Rob Clack]

I used to think that you were a sensible chap.

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.

I wasn't going to bother replying as we obviously don't agree, which is fine, but I don't think there is any need for you to be as rude as you have been to Debs. I don't mind you having a pop at me as I've got a thick skin.
I've always held your opinion in the highest regard and still do and I'll beg to differ here.

Regards

Rob

[Stewart P Evans]

Timeline

I thought that a timeline for events at the Poplar mortuary may be of assistance in understanding events.

Morning of Sat 21 December - Dr. Brownfield makes a post mortem examination (autopsy) on Mylett's body. He concludes it is murder but does not communicate his finding to the police at this time.

Night of Fri/Sat 21/22 December - Anderson looks at the evening paper just after midnight reads the inquest report and learns of the suggestion that it is a murder.

Morning of Sat 22 December - Anderson acquaints Monro with the doctor's suggestion that the Poplar case is a murder and Monro requires Anderson to visit Poplar in person.
Anderson writes a note to Bond asking him to meet him at Poplar but Bond is out of town for the day and doesn't get the message.
Anderson visits the murder site with the officers who found the body and then goes to the mortuary and examines the body. Anderson decides it is not a case of murder.
Dr. Hebbert, Bond's assistant, opens Anderson's note and goes to the mortuary in place of the absent Bond arriving just after Anderson has left. Hebbert carries out a second post mortem on the body.
Anderson, back at Scotland Yard and unaware of Hebbert's attendance, explains the situation to Monro who asked the chief surgeon, McKellar, to attend the mortuary. McKellar arrives just after Hebbert has left.

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).

Mon 24 December - Drs. Bond and Hebbert call on Anderson at Scotland Yard with a report to the effect that all of the doctors agree that it is a homicide. Anderson then has 'a long conference' with Bond and Hebbert in which he 'presses his difficulties and objections' and refers them to Monro, but;
that afternoon Bond again goes to the mortuary 'to make a more careful examination of the woman's neck'.
Bond then returns to Scotland Yard and tells Anderson that he 'has entirely altered his view of the case, and is satisfied that though death was due to strangulation, it was produced accidentally and not by homicidal violence.

[Stewart P Evans]

Honest

I wasn't going to bother replying as we obviously don't agree, which is fine, but I don't think there is any need for you to be as rude as you have been to Debs. I don't mind you having a pop at me as I've got a thick skin.
I've always held your opinion in the highest regard and still do and I'll beg to differ here.
Regards
Rob

I suggest that you re-read the posts to see who started upon whom. And if I think someone is being silly I tell them so, that's not being rude that's being honest. If I'm silly and someone tells me so I don't take offence. I think we are all grown ups here and should act accordingly.

I am honest enough to say, and have said, that I admire the work done both by Debs and yourself. But if I disagree I shall say so and people should not take that personally. I also hope that I have afforded an explanation on this thread for the opinions I have given. Also I do not need to have depression explained to me as I suffer from clinical depression. It is a tiresome and debilitating affliction.

Apropos of suicides I have personally dealt with very many. The first was a terminally ill man in bed who overdosed, slashed his wrists and bled to death. I was 20 years old when I dealt with that. Over the years there were many including hanging, shooting, overdoses, drowning, burning alive doused in petrol, jumping in front of trucks and jumping in front of a train which resulted in total mutilation and dismemberment.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Hunter,



I was quoting her contributions to this thread.

See post #5.

Ben

I was addressing Debs in that post in which I had made it absolutely clear that I didnt want to engage with you on the matter.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. I want nothing whatever to do with you here.Do you understand?

[Debra A]

On that a timeline for events at the Poplar mortuary may be of assistance in understanding events.

Morning of Sat 21 December - Dr. Brownfield makes a post mortem examination (autopsy) on Mylett's body. He concludes it is murder but does not communicate his finding to the police at this time.

Night of Fri/Sat 21/22 December - Anderson looks at the evening paper just after midnight reads the inquest report and learns of the suggestion that it is a murder.

Morning of Sat 22 December - Anderson acquaints Monro with the doctor's suggestion that the Poplar case is a murder and Monro requires Anderson to visit Poplar in person.
Anderson writes a note to Bond asking him to meet him at Poplar but Bond is out of town for the day and doesn't get the message.
Anderson visits the murder site with the officers who found the body and then goes to the mortuary and examines the body. Anderson decides it is not a case of murder.
Dr. Hebbert, Bond's assistant, opens Anderson's note and goes to the mortuary in place of the absent Bond arriving just after Anderson has left. Hebbert carries out a second post mortem on the body.
Anderson, back at Scotland Yard and unaware of Hebbert's attendance, explains the situation to Monro who asked the chief surgeon, McKellar, to attend the mortuary. McKellar arrives just after Hebbert has left.

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).

Mon 24 December - Drs. Bond and Hebbert call on Anderson at Scotland Yard with a report to the effect that all of the doctors agree that it is a homicide. Anderson then has 'a long conference' with Bond and Hebbert in which he 'presses his difficulties and objections' and refers them to Monro, but;
that afternoon Bond again goes to the mortuary 'to make a more careful examination of the woman's neck'.
Bond then returns to Scotland Yard and tells Anderson that he 'has entirely altered his view of the case, and is satisfied that though death was due to strangulation, it was produced accidentally and not by homicidal violence.

So Monro was the last person to speak to Hebbert and Bond before the possible change of mind. Why did Hebbert not succumb to this same pressure though?

I did start this Rob, well I did question the motives of posting that illustration , Stewart is right, I admit, but 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.

[Natalie Severn]

Debs,
I commented on Dr Bond myself. I did so because after reading the latest case of Dr Bond contradicting the views of two doctors,who had "seen " the injury to the throat-your first post on this thread]I decided he was someone who viewed a person"s life as dispensable EVEN WHERE THERE WAS DOUBT as evidenced by his two colleagues.
Clearly our sensibilities here are different.I believe that if there was doubt, as there clearly was, by his two medical colleagues, then it was incumbent upon Dr Bond to "reserve judgement".He did not-even though he had not even seen the victim"s injuries.He sent the man to his death by hanging.
Dont ask me to have sympathy for him.He who lives by the sword dies by the sword----or tit for tat in simple language.
No sympathy for him whatsoever.

[Debra A]

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.

[Stewart P Evans]

Modify

So Monro was the last person to speak to Hebbert and Bond before the possible change of mind. Why did Hebbert not succumb to this same pressure though?
I did start this Rob, well I did question the motives of posting that illustration , Stewart is right, I admit, but 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.

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 did not post the picture of Bond's suicide for any other reason than I thought it it would be of interest to those who had discussed it, if they hadn't seen it before. Personally I think it wasn't in the best of taste for the press of 1901 to publish it but now it is history and the interest is academic I should have thought. Indeed, I have had several contacts supporting me over this and disagreeing with your stand and your post to me which they considered a bit offensive. I guess it's all a matter of personal opinion, but when you look back at some of the horrendous material that has been displayed on these threads in the past it pales into insignificance.

It has been brought to my attention that you think that I do not like you. Nothing could be further from the truth. You do great work and I have nothing but high regard for your sustained interest and diligent research which puts many others to shame.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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