Dr. Bond...being Dr. Bond

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Stewart P Evans]

Again

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.

I do not think that Anderson made an error - for the reasons I have given, he is very specific elaborating on the point to state that the first visit was to verify Hebbert's notes and the second time, using the words "Mr. Bond went again to Poplar", to make a more careful examination of the woman's neck. These are very specific remarks and do not indicate a careless error. But, as I said, you are entitled to your own opinion.

[Rob Clack]

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.

That would be a great shame. To both of those.

[Hunter]

Bond and another case

Here is another case, the infamous Harriet Lane murder trial of 1875, in which Bond differs with a Dr. Larkin on several points in the post mortem.
The case involved a Henry and Thomas Wainwright, who were apprehended while transporting a dismembered body of a woman in a cab across the London Bridge.

The body parts were badly decomposed and some were mummified as the victim had been dead for maybe nine months. Bond disagreed with Larkin's assumption that one's age could be determined by the wisdom teeth. In analysing whether the deceased had born children or not, Larkin believed that a woman who had given birth would have a thinner linning of the uterus; possibly from stretching. Bond thought that the uterus in such a woman would have thick walls after contraction from childbirth. He even went so far as to rehydrate the mummified uterus to prove his point.

The text is rather long, but interesting, giving us a first-hand glimpse into Bond's earlier career. You can scroll down and find both doctors' testimony near the end.

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?path=sessionsPapers%2F18751122.xml

[Debra A]

Thanks for posting this, Hiunter.
The way I read it was that Dr Bond and Dr Larkin agreed that the deceased had borne a child/children. Their opinion was contradicted by Dr Meadows(?) ...an expert in midwifery anyway.

There seems to have been some support for the conclusions of Bond and Larkin anyhow in the British Medical Journal Dec 25 1875.