Dr Bond and his "CANON".

[jc007]

a. I did answer your question earlier.

b. I do enjoy a good insult, but only when provoked.

c. You reap what you sow.

O.k. we both have a had a stab at each other (no pun intended), lets get back to business.

[Ben]

Hi Jc007,

Two questions:

1) How many victims do you attribute to the same killer, and which ones?

2) Do you believe Eddowes and Chapman were killed by the same hand?

[Dan Norder]

He excluded Smith and Tabram and the other women who had suffered attacks in Whitechapel in 1887/88

As far as I know he didn't even consider anyone other than Smith, Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly, so to say he excluded the other attacks in Whitechapel doesn't seem to be an accurate assumption.

These were Nichols, Chapman,Stride,Eddowes and Kelly ,from henceforth known as "the Canonical Five"

The canonical five term doesn't show up until the mid- to late 20th century after the Macnaghten Memorandum is discovered and researchers at the time are apparently unaware of the statements by countless other officials with differing opinions.

Bond certainly didn't have a "canon," and if we were to talk about Bond's canon as a real thing it should also include Alice Mackenzie and thus be thought of separately from the ones that Macnaghten argued for.

"I see in this murder evidence of a similar design to the former Whitechapel murders viz the sudden onslaught on the prostrate woman, THE THROAT SKILLFULLY & RESOLUTELY CUT with subsequent mutilation,each mutilation indicating sexual thoughts and a desire to mutilate the abdomen and sexual organs."

As pointed out in another thread, the skill to cut a throat need only be the skill of someone who has handled a knife in a similar way previously, and Bond believed that the killer had murdered five previous women in the same way. It would be a mistake to assume he meant that the skill involved was that of a doctor or even a butcher.

[jc007]

Hi Jc007,

Two questions:

1) How many victims do you attribute to the same killer, and which ones?

2) Do you believe Eddowes and Chapman were killed by the same hand?

To be honest Ben, i don't really know, i not going to say they definately were or were not, but it does appear they were by the same hand, but no-one can be sure. As to with your first question, its hard to say for sure, i had thought for many years the accepted 5 were the only victims, but now im more open minded about it.

[Ben]

To be honest Ben, i don't really know

Of course you don't "know". I'm asking you what you think.

If you subscribe to the view that both women were killed by the same man, you'll be agreeing with Bond, not Phillips. I'd agree with that, and for obvious reasons, would urge caution when arguing that Phillips was better qualified just because he'd seen more bodies. Slightly odd that the people arguing that premise are still in agreement with Bond on most things.

[Monty]

JC007

I see Ben had pre~empted me. You do not name your own 'canon'. Who were by the same hand?

So no one is allowed to analyse unless they see the body first hand? Doesnt bode well for future cold cases.

No, if the report was available then there is no need to view the body. Its a pointless task.

Monty

[jc007]

Dan,

Again i ask how can Bond give any opinion on things he had not seen, if Kelly was the only victim he examined then how is able to conclude anything about the other victims, he obviously is purely guessing that the killer was the same person and deducing since he thinks all are by the same hand that there was no skill involved, like i said if he didn't examine the other victims he has no right to say what or what did not happen to them, that is the job for the surgeon or surgeons who performed the examinations on the other victims.

[jc007]

JC007

No, if the report was available then there is no need to view the body. Its a pointless task.

Monty

But if Bond is using a report that is endorsing that the killer had skill and he is saying the killer had no skill then he is contradicting the said report and if he is going to contradict the report wouldn't he need to see first hand, it just seems logical if he was going to make a huge contradiction like that that he would need to make his own examination which he did not do.

[Ben]

No, if the report was available then there is no need to view the body. Its a pointless task

Absolutely, Monty.

Jc007 - He did see it. He saw the report. That's all the matters. Or did Phillips mysteriously withhold something for no reason? Anyway, you disagee with the latter's attributing Chapman and Eddowes to different killers despite his having seen both corpses, remember?

But if Bond is using a report that is endorsing that the killer had skill and he is saying the killer had no skill then he is contradicting the said report

No he isn't.

He's looking at the report and deducing from it that the killer had no medical training.

[jc007]

JC007


So no one is allowed to analyse unless they see the body first hand? Doesnt bode well for future cold cases.


Monty

I think autopsies today are a bit more detailed and accurate than that of the 1800's, also today they can use photos (obviously higher quality), video, and audio tape recordings to assist. all things that were not available in the 1800's.

[Monty]

I would also like to point out that Bond, by 1888, had 24 years of experience. Including service with the Prussian Army.

And out of those 24 years, 21 were spent as a Police Surgeon.

A very experienced Doctor who wouldnt have lasted that long if he wasnt much cop.

Monty

[jc007]

Absolutely, Monty.


He's looking at the report and deducing from it that the killer had no medical training.

Surely his opinions are more accurate if he had made his own examination, i can't believe you guys are agueing that a doctor can make any kind of conclusion or diagnosis without looking at it first hand, if so next time i need to see my doctor I will just write a report and send it to him and he can diagnose my problem without the need for an examination, and if he gets it wrong well i guess i can sue him because as you say seeing a report is all that matters.

[jc007]

Jc007 - He did see it. He saw the report. That's all the matters. Or did Phillips mysteriously withhold something for no reason? Anyway, you disagee with the latter's attributing Chapman and Eddowes to different killers despite his having seen both corpses, remember?

Ben, I don't recall disagreeing with anything, i said i don't know and that i used to have the belief the accepted 5 were the only victims and now im not sure, i don't claim to know all the answers.

[Monty]

JC007,

Bond would have viewed the SOC and autopsy reports, position of body, cuts etc. He stated notes in his report.

Monty

[Brenda]

Someone define "Police Surgeon" - obviously someone with both medical knowledge and law enforcement knowledge, but would they have received training needed to determine whether wounds were inflicted by the same hand? It all seems terribly subjective.