Dr Bond and his "CANON".

[Monty]

Hey Mitch,

How do you come to the conclusion that the so called canon was committed by the same hand?

Seeing as you havent attended any of the post mortem examinations an all.

Cheers

Monty

[Gideon Fell]

Odd statements in Bond's report of 10 November 1888.

"In the four murders of which I have seen the notes only, I cannot form a very definite opinion as to the time that had elapsed between the murder and the discovering of the body.
In one case, that of Berner's Street, the discovery appears to have been made immediately after the deed - in Buck's Row, Hanbury Street, and Mitre Square three or four hours only could have elapsed."

"In all the cases there appears to be no evidence of struggling and the attacks were probably so sudden and made in such a position that the women could neither resist nor cry out."

[Natalie Severn]

Well no, not really Nats.

It's all to easy to arrive at a perceived conclusion and say "Aha! Told ya! I thought so all along", and Anderson may have been dong just that. I can think of a better explanation, though: just because the house-to-house searches were taking place in Sept/Oct 1888, doesn't mean that the Polish Jew conclusion was reached at that time. Anderson's remark would seem incredibly odd unless he was referring to a specific person such as Kosminski. It seems far more likely that he concluded that the killer was Kosminski (rather than Mr. Generic Jew), and then claimed that the results bore out his Kosminski-related suspicions.

Ben

There was though,certainly from just after the Hanbury Street murder ,anti semitic activity on the upper in Whitechapel which,along with Warren"s not unreasonable ordering of the erasure of the graffiti ,certainly point to elements already targeting and scapegoating the Jewish community.So that by the time Robert Anderson returned from Paris and the Police were concluding from their house-to house searches that the Ripper " was being shielded by his people", Anderson"s fantasies about the Jewish community seem to have taken fire.
If you think about it, Anderson is unlikely to have considered his "low class " Jew to have been a doctor like Kosminski or Leather Apron .Dont forget Ben, that Robert Anderson was every bit as determined as you are today to to scotch the idea that the ripper was a medical man-thats why he wrote to Warren insisting they bring in Dr Bond to get his opinion on the degree of anatomical knowledge/surgical skill etc possessed by the Ripper.
And so we have Anderson and his Dr Bond refuting the claims of Dr Brown and Dr Phillips and denying the Ripper had even the skill of a handler of meat .And then we are presented with Kosminski. I say!
Dont forget its on the word of Dr Bond that the whole" idea" of the five victims of the Ripper rested-later to be referred to as "the canonical five"-pah!
Natalie

[Ben]

So that by the time Robert Anderson returned from Paris and the Police were concluding from their house-to house searches that the Ripper " was being shielded by his people

Depends what you mean by the "police", Nats. They were all arriving at different conclusions, and it should be noted that Donald Swanson believed at that time that the message was an attempt to throw suspicion on the Jewish community (as opposed to it being Jewish-generated) - Swanson being the man in overall charge of the investigation and immediate subordinate to Anderson. There's no evidence that Anderson's views contrasted markedly with those of Swanson and Warren at that time, and certainly no evidence that he had already fingered a low class Jew.

nd so we have Anderson and his Dr Bond refuting the claims of Dr Brown and Dr Phillips and denying the Ripper had even the skill of a handler of meat

...Saunders and Sequeira disputed it too and belonged, with Bond, in the majority of medical contemporary experts who attributed little or no skill to the killer. Brown and Phillips weren't exactly enjoying a chorus of agreement with their views, and I'm afraid it's misleading to state that Phillips believed "The Ripper" had medical skill. He stated only that Chapman's killer had medical skill, and we have no idea how many other victims he chalked up to that killer, if any. He opined that Eddowes was killed by someone else; an opinion that was almost certainly wrong.

Dont forget its on the word of Dr Bond that the whole" idea" of the five victims of the Ripper rested-later to be referred to as "the canonical five"-pah!

No, it isn't! Bond never had a "canon", and even if he did, he certainly didn't limit it to five victims. You're confusing him with Macnaghten who was pretty much alone in his "C5" beliefs. Bond believed Alice MacKenzie was a ripper victim, whereas "canonical" Macnaghten did not.

All the best,
Ben

[jc007]

... and I'm afraid it's misleading to state that Phillips believed "The Ripper" had medical skill.

At the same time its misleading to state Bond believed the Ripper had no skill, because he didn't even view the bodies of the first 4 accepted victims and yet Phillips had first hand knowledge. Come on guys you are trying to say that a Dr who did not examine the bodies is more qualified to give a correct post mortum than a Dr who actually examined the bodies, really.

[Natalie Severn]

Depends what you mean by the "police", Nats. They were all arriving at different conclusions, and it should be noted that Donald Swanson believed at that time that the message was an attempt to throw suspicion on the Jewish community (as opposed to it being Jewish-generated) - Swanson being the man in overall charge of the investigation and immediate subordinate to Anderson. There's no evidence that Anderson's views contrasted markedly with those of Swanson and Warren at that time, and certainly no evidence that he had already fingered a low class Jew.



...Saunders and Sequeira disputed it too and belonged, with Bond, in the majority of medical contemporary experts who attributed little or no skill to the killer. Brown and Phillips weren't exactly enjoying a chorus of agreement with their views, and I'm afraid it's misleading to state that Phillips believed "The Ripper" had medical skill. He stated only that Chapman's killer had medical skill, and we have no idea how many other victims he chalked up to that killer, if any. He opined that Eddowes was killed by someone else; an opinion that was almost certainly wrong.



No, it isn't! Bond never had a "canon", and even if he did, he certainly didn't limit it to five victims. You're confusing him with Macnaghten who was pretty much alone in his "C5" beliefs. Bond believed Alice MacKenzie was a ripper victim, whereas "canonical" Macnaghten did not.

All the best,
Ben

Ben,I suggest you read up on the spats that went on between Warren and Anderson-especially concerning the approach to the local East End Jewish community.

I dont really want to keep repeating what I am saying as it gets so tedious.Lets say that we differ in our interpretations of what went on.
There is actually an abundance of evidence that Warren did not get on well with Anderson but you will have to look for the sources yourself -they are there in Evans Ultimate,Sugden, the complete,Fenian Fire Christy Campbell. I am not prepared to dig them out only to have you contradict everything I say even down to the most obvious events that were shaping Robert Anderson"s thinking that a Low Class Polish Jew was responsible for the Whitechapel murders.


Ofcourse the "police" did the house -to -house searches.Ofcourse it is well and thoroughly documented that Anderson based his initial thinking that a low class Polish Jew was responsible for the murders,on precisely what the police were considering in their house -to -house searches of October 1888 .Anderson says so himself ,not in one publication,not in two publications but in three.His two books and in Blackwood"s magazine .What more "proof" do you actually need?

As far as the "canon" is concerned I am not remotely interested in whether or not it was Bond"s initial term of use for the FIVE women he chose to "name" in November 1888 as victims of the Ripper .The important issue here is whether he was correct,especially since he didnt actually see those four of those five victims in the flesh or examine them himself.This is of importance particularly as the case took a different turn not long after this and you had Sir Melville Macnaghten claiming that there were "five victims and five victims only" on the basis of Dr Bond"s recommendation in November 1888.
Ben,Dr Bond couldnt even give an exact time of death ! He admitted so himself.Add to this the fact that he seems to have made something of an issue of "contradicting" other medical expert opinion in 1888---not just contradicting Dr Phillips,lets be clear, but also the medical opinion of Doctors Brownfield,Hibbert, Harris together with his BOSS of all people,The Police- Surgeon- in -Chief, Dr Alexander MacKellar.This was at the end of December 1888,but four weeks after he made his pronouncement about who were the FIVE victims of The Whitechapel murderer. Each and every one of those doctors just referred to ,and this needs to be emphasised, disagreed with him profoundly on every count.This ought to tell us something -if only who was behind him in his "pronouncements"!
Best
Natalie

[Ben]

At the same time its misleading to state Bond believed the Ripper had no skill

No, it isn't. That's what Bond said!

and yet Phillips had first hand knowledge

And yet Phillips believed Eddowes and Chapman were killed by different people, and you disagree with that. You do agree with Bond who believed they were killed by the same person despite the fact that he didn't view the corpses.

[Ben]

What more "proof" do you actually need?

Hi Natalie - I never disputed the fact that Anderson favoured a Polish Jew as the killer. I am disputing the suggestion that he'd already arrived at this conclusion in September of 1888 and that he got Bond to lie about his medical findings in order to accomodate that theory.

This is of importance particularly as the case took a different turn not long after this and you had Sir Melville Macnaghten claiming that there were "five victims and five victims only" on the basis of Dr Bond"s recommendation in November 1888

But as I explained, Bond did not think there was "five victims only".

Ben,Dr Bond couldnt even give an exact time of death !

And you find that surprising given that this was the LVP?

Ben

[Dan Norder]

In one case, that of Berner's Street, the discovery appears to have been made immediately after the deed - in Buck's Row, Hanbury Street, and Mitre Square three or four hours only could have elapsed."

I've never understood why this statement should be considered at all odd. Bond is not saying that a minimum of three hours up to a maximum of four hours ellapsed between the murder and the body's discovery in each of those case. He is just saying that Stride appears to have been found, as he said, "immediately after the deed" while the others were not immediate but some time less than three or four hours. And from the medical evidence that's certainly correct. The number would probably be lower if it weren't for the Chapman case, in which medical opinion at the time was that the murder happened several hours before the body was found. If he'd broken each of those four cases out individually and said in each of them three to four hours could have elapsed then, yes, that would be odd, but that's not what he said.

[Mitch Rowe]

Hey Mitch,

How do you come to the conclusion that the so called canon was committed by the same hand?

Seeing as you havent attended any of the post mortem examinations an all.

Cheers

Monty

How could I NOT come to that conclusion?
The victims are of the same type.
They nearly had their heads chopped off.
They were killed in public or semi public areas.
Most had abdominal wounds and wounds described as jagged.
They were killed within one square mile of each other.
If one looks at the C5 as a whole one can see a pattern of escalation of the "frenzy".
ect..ect..

There arent that many Men that can do such things. The chances that there were two Men is very slim.
We are talking about cold blooded Murder here. Almost systematic. I dont care how rough it was back then in the east end. A human being is a human being and has to be as cold as ice to do those things. If JTR werent a rare bird we wouldnt be talking about him today.

[Gideon Fell]

I've never understood why this statement should be considered at all odd. Bond is not saying that a minimum of three hours up to a maximum of four hours ellapsed between the murder and the body's discovery in each of those case. He is just saying that Stride appears to have been found, as he said, "immediately after the deed" while the others were not immediate but some time less than three or four hours. And from the medical evidence that's certainly correct. The number would probably be lower if it weren't for the Chapman case, in which medical opinion at the time was that the murder happened several hours before the body was found. If he'd broken each of those four cases out individually and said in each of them three to four hours could have elapsed then, yes, that would be odd, but that's not what he said.

Of course it's odd as Bond specified the cases of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes and he says of them "three or four hours only could have elapsed." This is a very misleading statement as the evidence of PC Neil clearly showed that Nichols' body had not been there 30 minutes previous to him finding her and in the case of Eddowes PC Watkins' evidence narrowed it to within 15 minutes. Bond was supposed to be doing a careful analysis of the murders and it seems to be pretty careless to me.

[Natalie Severn]

Ben,
It is important in the sense of accuracy that you do not misinterpret what I have said:


i] I said that on 10th NOVEMBER 1888,[ please note that that is not September 1888]in a report he gave to Robert Anderson,[that has profoundly affected all subsequent research on the matter]
Dr Bond named just five women as the victims of the Whitechapel murderer.

ii]I did not say Dr Bond "lied" because Robert Anderson told him to. However I suggest his findings may have been influenced by Anderson, who demonstrably encouraged him to change his mind over whether or not Rose Mylett died a natural death in December 1888 and thus contradict the medical opinion of five medical experts including Dr Bond"s boss Dr MacKellar and therefore may have similarly influenced his decision to name just five victims----oh let me be exact........to name 5 victims of the Whitechapel murderer on 10th November in a special report requested by Robert Anderson.

iii]With regards to Dr Bond being unable to give a more reasonably close time of death ,he admitted himself that this was because he was unable to examine four of the victims.
So my own view is that he was not in as good a position to decide all these finer medical details than Dr Phillips who was an experienced well regarded police surgeon.

iv] As for your claim that Robert Anderson did not decide upon his Polish Jew theory as a consequence of discussions he had with police after their 1888 house -to house searches, I can only reiterate -and for the last time-that it is what he said himself in the books he wrote and in Blackwell"s Magazine.

Maybe the searches and subsequent discussions on them didnt shape his thinking in 1888-----but this is definitely the implication he makes in several of his statements about it.


Best

Natalie

[Dan Norder]

This is a very misleading statement as the evidence of PC Neil clearly showed that Nichols' body had not been there 30 minutes previous to him finding her and in the case of Eddowes PC Watkins' evidence narrowed it to within 15 minutes.

To get it as short as 15-30 minutes in those cases you have to assume that the police constables were on their beats as assigned, and, as I'm sure you know, Ripper authors with police experience have stated that PCs didn't always do so.

But even if you assume that 15-30 minutes is right in both of those cases -- and it probably is -- Bond's statement is only misleading if you read it to mean "in all three cases it could have been as long as three hours but less than four," which is not what he said.

[Monty]

Mitch,

Exactly.

Monty

[Gideon Fell]

To get it as short as 15-30 minutes in those cases you have to assume that the police constables were on their beats as assigned, and, as I'm sure you know, Ripper authors with police experience have stated that PCs didn't always do so.

But even if you assume that 15-30 minutes is right in both of those cases -- and it probably is -- Bond's statement is only misleading if you read it to mean "in all three cases it could have been as long as three hours but less than four," which is not what he said.

I think that it is a nonsense to suggest that the evidence of Neil and Watkins is incorrect in this case. Ignoring them though you still have Nichols seen at 2.30 am by Holland and Eddowes released from Bishopsgate Police station at 1.00 am.

You must use a different version of the English language to me as Bond wrote regarding "the time that had elapsed between the murder and the discovery of the body ... In Buck's Row, Hanbury Street, and Mitre Square three or four hours only could have elapsed." Which is clearly incorrect, three or four hours could not have elapsed..