Dr. Bond...being Dr. Bond

[curious4]

Mr Bond

Hello,

Shaken, but not stirred!

He was a surgeon I believe? After becoming a physician of course.

Best wishes,
C4

[Supe]

Curious4,

Incidentally, he should be referred to as Mr Bond, as he had consultant status and was therefore adjudged to be "a gentleman".

I think you will find it was the convention of the time that all surgeons were referred to as Mr. and Dr. reserved for physicians.

Don.

[curious4]

Mr Bond

In Andersonīs letter to Bond he says: "In dealing with the Whitechapel murders the difficulties of conducting the enquiry are largely increased by reason of our having no reliable opinion for our guidance as to the amount of sugical skill and anatomical knowledge probably possessed by the murderer or murderers".

I take this to mean that he was consulted as to his opinion as a surgeon, that is on the way in which the bodies were cut and the similarities or otherwise. I have heard that a skilful surgeon can identify the work of another (canīt prove this, hearsay). He was a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons and therefore presumably high up in his profession - not just another doctor.

Incidentally, he should be referred to as Mr Bond, as he had consultant status and was therefore adjudged to be "a gentleman". In fact, in his letter to the Home Office, Anderson refers to him as "Mr. Bond".

As to his suicide, I think it very sad that he was refused adequate pain relief - why worry about addiction if the poor man was dying anyway!

Best wishes
C4

[Hunter]

Fair enough, Heinrich. Some professionals can display an air of overconfidence and some can be very experienced and qualified... or a little bit of both. Depends on the personality... as it does with everyone.

Thomas Bond has been a difficult figure to study in some respects. In some of the cases where he went against his colleagues, he was proved to be right. And then there's the Mylett case where that is not so certain.

But a fascinating individual, nevertheless... along with George Baxter Phillips. I tend to withhold any harsh judgment of historical figures until I've attempted a comprehensive study of them. I figure they deserve that much since no one today knew any of these people. Some of their descendants do peruse these boards from time to time.

[Heinrich]

... What I meant by that statement was that he had access to all of the evidence available at that time- the murders being recent- including the ability to correspond with the other physicians. We have neither at this removed date.

And what I am saying is that his opinion that all five victims (four of whom he had not examined) were undoubtedly killed by the same man is rash. The fact that he waited until he had performed an autopsy on Mary Kelly and then immediately make such a judgment does indeed merit the accusation of it being a snap call.

... Since you disagree with his findings, the onus is on you to provide evidence that he was incorrect by jumping to conclusions in this instance .

I cannot give an opinion about his findings only the manner in which he made them. By claiming that the same person killed all five victims, without having seen four of them and immediately after seeing only one (of whom an opinion was not sought initially by Anderson) smacks of an over confidence in his own powers of induction.

... I can see no evidence that his statements were tainted by rashness or jumping to any conclusions.

Clearly, I failed to persuade you, Hunter.

Of course, I don't pretend to know who killed any of these women either. Quite frankly, I find accusations of that magnitude, without substantial evidence, against people who are no longer here to defend themselves, to be immoral.

There isn't a thing immoral about study and attempting to discover the facts of the past. Rest easy, Hunter, Mary Kelly's murderer got away scott free and even if an innocent person is identified based on the circumstantial evidence, there is no fear of him being falsely arrested at this stage.

[Hunter]

Hello Heinrich,

Dr. Thomas Bond had no evidence fresh in front of him about any Jack the Ripper murders except that of Mary Jane Kelly. He only read autopsy reports of the four murders sent to him by Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner, Robert Anderson.

What I meant by that statement was that he had access to all of the evidence available at that time- the murders being recent- including the ability to correspond with the other physicians. We have neither at this removed date.

The conclusion he jumped to was that Mary Kelly had been murdered by the same man who had murdered all the four victims. He had had the autopsy reports for two weeks but made no reply about them until 10th November having spend a good deal of the previous day performing an autopsy on Mary Kelly's body. The only body he had actually seen was that of Mary Kelly and that was the only fresh first-hand evidence he had. Yet, he immediately determined that one person had killed all five victims. That meets the standard for jumping to a conclusion, Hunter.

Bond certainly did have two weeks to study the other cases and he may have done so during that time. Having been personally involved in the Kelly case would not preclude him to spend considerably more time to complete a comprehensive analysis.

The onus was on Dr. Thomas Bond to prove his snap judgment that the five canonical victims were murdered by the same man not on anyone else to disprove his rash claim.

Bond was not asked to prove anything. He was asked to give his opinion about this series of murders; most notably concerning the aspect of any anatomical knowledge in any of them. That it was a 'snap judgment' or a 'rash claim' is your unsubstantiated opinion, which you are certainly entitled to. Since you disagree with his findings, the onus is on you to provide evidence that he was incorrect by jumping to conclusions in this instance .

If you have read through this thread, or any others concerning Dr. Thomas Bond, you will notice that I have not been, at times, the most complimentary proponent of him, but in this instance, I can see no evidence that his statements were tainted by rashness or jumping to any conclusions. To do otherwise, without pertinent information to corroberate such a notion, would be bias and display a lack of objectivity.

Of course, I don't pretend to know who killed any of these women either. Quite frankly, I find accusations of that magnitude, without substantial evidence, against people who are no longer here to defend themselves, to be immoral.

[Heinrich]

If some of the contemporary doctors - who had the evidence fresh in front of them - could not reach a consensus on certain aspects, why would we believe that any qualified physician - at this far removed date - could categorically refute or corroborate, any one of their opinions?

Dr. Thomas Bond had no evidence fresh in front of him about any Jack the Ripper murders except that of Mary Jane Kelly. He only read autopsy reports of the four murders sent to him by Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner, Robert Anderson.

Whether modern suspect theorists agree or disagree with Bond's 'conclusions', it would be less than credible to assert that he jumped to any conclusion. He presented a studied analysis of the case with information- that much of it- we no longer have access to.

The conclusion he jumped to was that Mary Kelly had been murdered by the same man who had murdered all the four victims. He had had the autopsy reports for two weeks but made no reply about them until 10th November having spend a good deal of the previous day performing an autopsy on Mary Kelly's body. The only body he had actually seen was that of Mary Kelly and that was the only fresh first-hand evidence he had. Yet, he immediately determined that one person had killed all five victims. That meets the standard for jumping to a conclusion, Hunter.

None of the profile that he put forward has ever been disproved by anyone.

The onus was on Dr. Thomas Bond to prove his snap judgment that the five canonical victims were murdered by the same man not on anyone else to disprove his rash claim.

[Hunter]

It is interesting that on so many occasions, where there is difference of opinion among the medical experts, Dr Bond's view seems to be at odds with that of everyone else. His view on the time of onset of rigor mortis is demonstrably wrong so, wherever there is divergence of opinion, I tend to come down, against Bond, and for the person or persons at odds with him. We probably need a doctor to determine, once and for all, whether or not Bond's conclusions are valid or otherwise.

If some of the contemporary doctors - who had the evidence fresh in front of them - could not reach a consensus on certain aspects, why would we believe that any qualified physician - at this far removed date - could categorically refute or corroborate, any one of their opinions?

It was Dr Thomas Bond who also jumped to the conclusion that Mary Kelly's killer was also responsible for the other murders which seems a hasty judgment given the special and different circumstances.

Whether modern suspect theorists agree or disagree with Bond's 'conclusions', it would be less than credible to assert that he jumped to any conclusion. He presented a studied analysis of the case with information- that much of it- we no longer have access to. None of the profile that he put forward has ever been disproved by anyone.

All of these murders were exceptional for their time and place. Indeed, it could be argued that the knowledge gained in the interum years about such murders has substantuated some of his claims.

[Heinrich]

It is interesting that on so many occasions, where there is difference of opinion among the medical experts, Dr Bond's view seems to be at odds with that of everyone else. .... We probably need a doctor to determine, once and for all, whether or not Bond's conclusions are valid or otherwise.

It was Dr Thomas Bond who also jumped to the conclusion that Mary Kelly's killer was also responsible for the other murders which seems a hasty judgment given the special and different circumstances.

[Bridewell]

It is interesting that on so many occasions, where there is difference of opinion among the medical experts, Dr Bond's view seems to be at odds with that of everyone else. His view on the time of onset of rigor mortis is demonstrably wrong so, wherever there is divergence of opinion, I tend to come down, against Bond, and for the person or persons at odds with him. We probably need a doctor to determine, once and for all, whether or not Bond's conclusions are valid or otherwise.

[Suzi]

Exactly!

.....and puts an end to the 'chemise' nastiness if nothing else!.........no sheet! ....hehe!!!! well yes sheet!

[corey123]

In the end we owe alot to Dr.Bond, especially with Mary Kelly's case.

[Suzi]

Exactly- good point Debs x

[corey123]

Thanks for that Rob.

Sad story, but I ditto Debra's comment.

[Suzi]

Jump out of the window AND blow his brains out!!!! Going with a bang!!! shame it was OR
Blessim without Bond - where would we be....
Thanks for that Rob x